Papal Problems...:(

[jam070406]

I am working toward unity.

I will not work hard to get people to buy into wishful thinking for unity’s sake, but I will work hard to present the Truth for unity’s sake. I suppose it only seems negative to you because you do not like to read these things.

What I write does not seem negative to me at all. I am dealing with historical facts here and trying to be accurate, the truth is neither negative nor positive, it is what it is.

Michael

Catholics have the fullness of Truth. Come join us in it.

 

[jam070406]

The Orthodox remained one communion when the Muslims ruled over half,

No they didn’t. They broke from Rome under Muslim pressure.

 

[jam070406]

So, then…

1. 
   *]*if anyone *says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church,
   *]*and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; *
   *]*or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; *
   *]or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful…
   
   …let him be anathema.

1. 
   Authority is appointed by God, is it not?
   Remember Jesus’ talk with Pontius Pilate?

 

[jam070406]

Is speaking the Truth of history anti- anything, except anti-lie?

What Hesychios has said is true about the Frankish court and their bishops, and even those under Rome have admitted it. Another issue on unity: it was they who inserted the filioque over Rome’s protest.

Jesus is Truth. Which Catholics partake of, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinty at Holy Mass.

 

[famousjonnyk]

Mickey:

Here’s your proof from the early fathers that the chair of Peter had universal authority.

St. Irenaeus:

“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound ALL those who, in WHATEVER manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the GREATEST and most ancient church known to ALL, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been ANNOUNCED TO MEN by the apostles. WITH THAT CHURCH, because of its superior origin, ALL THE CHURCHES must agree, that is, THE FAITHFUL IN THE WHOLE WORLD, and it is in her that the faithful EVERYWHERE have maintained the apostolic tradition” (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).

Argue as you may, but Ireneaus is clearly talking about the whole world, not just the Western Patriarchate.

 

[Hesychios]

Thoughts from an Eastern Orthodox Priest
By Rev. Chrysostom Frank

i suppose you are going to say that this priest is also lying.

I did not accuse anyone of lying. And this priest is giving a lot of opinion in the quote, but not much in the way of historical fact.

BTW, this guy is not an Orthodox priest. He was already in the process of converting to Rome when he wrote that. You can find him in Denver.

http://www.stelizofhungary.org/images/father.jpg
Michael*

 

[Hesychios]

Whatever.

Like I said, I thought you were content in your new Faith. I would figure your new found peace and joy would lead you to not care what Catholics think but, you seem to continue to try and prove how wrong the Catholic Church is. On a Catholic board none the less. Why is that?

I never set out to prove your church wrong.

Now, if you have determined that your church is wrong, I have no idea why.

I merely pointed out that Alexius’ idea was anachronistic, and then demonstrated why. The facts are very clear, in the first millennium the bishops of Rome did not exercise the modern Papal supreme authority that it has claimed for itself, not even in the west. But princes and kings often did.

The original ecclesiology of the church had the local synods selecting and appointing their bishops. Not princes and kings, nor Popes. Monarchs usurped the power away from the local synods, and much later in the west the Popes wrested it from the monarchs. In the east that authority has by and large returned to the synods from whence it came.

This is precisely why the Papacy was so alarmed about Gallicanism, so alarmed in fact that they call it a heresy. But what did they teach? No doctrines alien to your church. It was only a general trend to national synods, reflecting the earlier Catholic ecclesiology. This was squashed at the time of Vatican Council I. Benedict XIV decided to recommend bringing them back in some form, and now you have a national bishops conference.

Conciliar church governance is integral to even your church, because that is how your church began. The western church was hardwired for it, but now it is buried under layers of loess, you have to scratch the surface to find it.

This is the key to unity. We can be as one again, Catholics and Orthodox together! But we should not kid ourselves into thinking that the way the the Latin church is run today is how it was always intended to be, because if so we would have seen that very early, set up by the Apostles, and we do not.

You may investigate this for yourself, don’t take my word for it. Ask yourself: who selected St Augustine for his post as bishop of Hippo…who selected Irenaeus for his post as bishop of Lyons?

Michael

 

[Hesychios]

Mickey:

Here’s your proof from the early fathers that the chair of Peter had universal authority.

St. Irenaeus:

“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound ALL those who, in WHATEVER manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the GREATEST and most ancient church known to ALL, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been ANNOUNCED TO MEN by the apostles. WITH THAT CHURCH, because of its superior origin, ALL THE CHURCHES must agree, that is, THE FAITHFUL IN THE WHOLE WORLD, and it is in her that the faithful EVERYWHERE have maintained the apostolic tradition” (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).

Argue as you may, but Ireneaus is clearly talking about the whole world, not just the Western Patriarchate.

Actually, this does not.

Rome was a major Christian city in his day. There were communities, actually ethnic communities, in various parts of the city and these people came to Rome from their homelands basically already Christians. It was quite easy to see that these people were in agreement with one another and with the bishop of the city.

If a heresy was to begin in some far off corner, sooner or later some of those people would make their way to Rome, and it would be very obvious that their community did not believe the same things as the rest of the Roman community and by extension the rest of the orthodox catholic Christian world.

This was possible to see in other great cities at times as well, but Rome was a great crossroads, and it did have superior origins, it made a great example. Everyone admired the church at Rome. The clergy in general should have been of the highest caliper for generations. The faith in that city should have represented something of a standard. Each succeeding bishop would have known the awesome responsibility upon his shoulders to carry on, unadulterated, the faith once handed to the Apostles. The eyes of the world were upon them.

There is no magic to it, Rome was Orthodox, it was a thriving metropolis and it sat at the heart of the Mediterranean world. But to think it is some kind of Teflon coated organization that nothing sticks to, no. Irenaeus was not a prophet and he wasn’t writing infallibly, he was speaking to the Christians of his day and in his day his advice worked.

What Irenaeus knew then was very good indeed. It can be that good again some day.

Michael

 

[Hesychios]

oops! who let the cat out of the bag?

:bowdown: :doh2: :knight1: :newidea: :hypno:

I knew you would like it.

 

[Hesychios]

Can you post the link to the quote?

here.

 

[Alexius]

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Hello Alexius,

Might I suggest that this view, as you interpret it presently, is anachronistic. By that I mean it would be proper to say that later Popes have sought to act like early emperors and kings, not that early emperors acted like Popes.

Charlemagne actually held for himself greater authority over the Frankish bishops than any eastern Roman emperor exercised in the east. This apparently served as the model of power which Bishops of Rome sought to wrest from the civil authorities in the west. It’s pretty dramatic history, if you care to read about it.

What should have happened was the royal power exercised over the churches to have devolved back to the local synods from which it originally stood. But by then the quality and character of Frankish bishops had deteriorated so greatly this was not about to happen readily. The Frankish bishops (and this extended across what is now Germany, France and northern Spain) were appointed by Merovingian and Carolingian kings for many decades, usually from the leading Frankish and Gothic families, not the more numerous earlier catholic populations.

They were exceptionally illiterate. So much so that no Frankish bishops were invited to attend the Council of Nicea II, as it was thought they had nothing to contribute! Papal Legates of Adrian were present though, and signed approval of the Council (it is still listed as approved by the Latin church today).

In reaction to this obvious snub, Charlemagne called a council at Frankfurt, presided by a legate of Adrian who signed approval. No bishops of the east were called. Two major issues they tackled were Adoptionism (a particular problem among Frankish bishops at the time), and the burning of witches (which was actually condemned). But the most important act of that council was to condemn Nicea II (and it specifically revoked the restoration of icons).

For his part, Adrian was dismayed at this reversal in Frankfurt but could do nothing about it.

That was the power of Charlemagne in action. His bishops, and sometimes the Pope, were his puppets. It would be difficult to catch this kind of information from purely Catholic sources, because the wording is usually crafted such that it paves over the embarrassing details.

In any case later Popes sought to have this overwhelming power over local bishops themselves. This is not worse than the earlier situation by any means, it is simply incorrect.

Pax et bonum,*
Michael*

OK. My apologies–I wasn’t clear. It seems that the Popes didn’t gain/reserve the amount of power they now have until right at the Schism and post-Schism. That is about the same time you have the emerging Scholastic movement and many definitions. I do not claim to know this, it just seems that way. The Popes certainly found themselves under the same pressure in the early Church.

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

 

[Alexius]

First of all, it doesn’t make sense to entrust infallible doctrine to a single fallible man. I know that is more of a statement, but it just doesn’t mesh. I am really open to proof, but it just doesn’t seem to fit…

Second of all, what really is the difference between a Pope making an ex cathedra and just a normal statement? Why isn’t he right on ALL statements of faith and morals? Just by saying a few words about defining and proclaiming to the whole Church, how is the Holy Spirit guarding him more than usual? Is it the statement itself that makes it infallible and the Spirit than guards?

By this point, most of you are probably thinking I’m a lost cause, but that is not true. I am just looking for all the information I can get. I have seen debates, read articles, etc., but I want to be sure to get everything I can before I start making decisions…

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

 

[Mickey]

Mickey:

Here’s your proof from the early fathers that the chair of Peter had universal authority.

St. Irenaeus:

Michael (Hesychios) responds to this appropriately.

St Irenaeus says nothing about supreme papal infallibility from the successors of St Peter.

However, I do see that he writes that the Church of Rome is founded by St Peter AND St Paul.

 

[East_and_West]

Michael (Hesychios) responds to this appropriately.

St Irenaeus says nothing about supreme papal infallibility from the successors of St Peter.

However, I do see that he writes that the Church of Rome is founded by St Peter AND St Paul.

And he also says that everyone must be in the agreement with the Church in Rome. Why? Because of its supperior origin, not just because she happens to be right at that time. “Everyone” sounds pretty universal to me.

 

[Mickey]

And he also says that everyone must be in the agreement with the Church in Rome. Why?

Uh…because Rome was the capital of Christianity?

The point here…is that this quote does nothing for the case of a supreme infallible pontiff.

 

[East_and_West]

Uh…because Rome was the capital of Christianity?

The point here…is that this quote does nothing for the case of a supreme infallible pontiff.

Absolutely it does but you simply refuse to see it. I fear this may be one of those matters where EO Christains have simply hardened theirs hearts. I will pray for you brother. :byzsoc:

 

[wisdomseeker]

First of all, it doesn’t make sense to entrust infallible doctrine to a single fallible man. I know that is more of a statement, but it just doesn’t mesh. I am really open to proof, but it just doesn’t seem to fit…

Second of all, what really is the difference between a Pope making an ex cathedra and just a normal statement? Why isn’t he right on ALL statements of faith and morals? Just by saying a few words about defining and proclaiming to the whole Church, how is the Holy Spirit guarding him more than usual? Is it the statement itself that makes it infallible and the Spirit than guards?

By this point, most of you are probably thinking I’m a lost cause, but that is not true. I am just looking for all the information I can get. I have seen debates, read articles, etc., but I want to be sure to get everything I can before I start making decisions…

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

if this is true, then why should we trust a church which was built by man.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Absolutely it does but you simply refuse to see it. I fear this may be one of those matters where EO Christains have simply hardened theirs hearts. I will pray for you brother. :byzsoc:

can prejudice against the catholic church hinder a person from seeing the truth of the Scriptures?

 

[East_and_West]

can prejudice against the catholic church hinder a person from seeing the truth of the Scriptures?

Since the Catholic Church is the fulness of God’s revelation to man, I would say absolutely it can.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Since the Catholic Church is the fulness of God’s revelation to man, I would say absolutely it can.

because i have noticed that those who reject the claims of the catholic church go great length to disprove what is true. they blind themselves, reject history, and seem to go around and around but cannot disprove it. If they read Romans, even then Paul talks about how the faith of the Romans are being talked about by all. that seemed to be already the Plan of Jesus for this Church to lead the way. anything related to this fact is rejected by those who resent the catholic church for being the chosen one. more like a jealousy type of sentiment. I would say that if it wasnt for God to hold this church up before so many opposition she could not have survived. think about it, securalists come against this church, protestants come against her with their campaigns, orthodox rejects her, and so forth…

I pray for you right now.
O Holy one of God, help him to make a decision on his journey to the priesthood. that Your Spirit rest upon him always and that Your truth be proclaimed trough him to all. this i ask from Jesus One who died and was crucified that we may have piece with our Mercifull God. I also call upon the Angels and Saints of God to watch over him as he contemplate the Will of our Lord. Amen