Papal Problems...:(

[wisdomseeker]

Okay, I looked at 642, and it did not enlighten the meaning of:

Please do explain. I am pretty sure you mean only the part where the filioque is, and not all that important stuff at the beginning. But what do you mean by the phrase above?

Thanks and God Bless,
Rosemary

yes that is what we been discussing. i believe the church already solve this problem.

 

[jam070406]

The Roman Emperors (and one Empress) who convened these Councils seemed ignorant of the fact that the Popes had to approve their convocation. If they did acknowledge this right of the Pope it would seem that they would have made matters easier and let the Popes convene the Councils, themselves (instead of perpetually testing the Roman Pontiff’s patience by convoking them independently). Besides, at least one emperor, Marcian, convened a Council (the Council of Chalcedon) against the expressed desires of Pope Leo. This is an awfully brazen action for emperors who were good Christian monarchs and terribly spineless inaction for Roman Pontiffs who (we are told) held supreme power of ecumenical councils. Besides, it should be noted that the West was often the last part of the Church to confirm the council. Thus, while it would look like the West was giving its supreme approval to the ecumenical Council it was actually just functioning like any part of the Church, which, with all the other local Churches, had to give its approval to a council in order for it to be considered, ecumenical. The claim of Rome to be be the final arbiter of councils reminds one of the short boy on the playground always being chosen last for the baseball game but thinking that the players are only saving the best for last. In other words - wishful thinking.

Compare this to the letter of Leo, Pope of Rome to Leo Augustus, Roman Emperor:

“For in your Majesties’ communications it is beyond doubt revealed what the Holy Spirit is working through you for the good of the whole Church… And hence, since I know you, venerable Prince, imbued as you are with the purest light of truth, waver in no part of the Faith, but with just and perfect judgment distinguish right from wrong and separate what is to be embraced from what is to be rejected, I beseech you not to think that my humility is to be blamed for want of competence, since my cautiousness is not only in the interest of the universal Church but also for the furtherance of your own glory… I am very confident of the piety of your heart in all things, and perceive that through the Spirit of God dwelling in you, you are sufficiently instructed, not can any error delude your faith" - Letter 162. Leo the Bishop of Rome to Leo Augustus, Roman Emperor.

Either be consistent and apply the inability to err to Roman Emperors or admit the Orthodox position that acclamations of the inability to err was a common way to laud the strong faith of certain individuals in the early Church and had/has no positive ecclesiological significance. Take your pick.

Aren’t you leaving out the context of this quote? I thought the context of the quote reads: “After the reading of the foregoing epistle, the most reverend bishops cried out: This is the faith of the fathers, this is the faith of the Apostles. So we all believe, thus the orthodox believe. Anathema to him who does not thus believe. Peter has spoken thus through Leo. So taught the Apostles. Piously and truly did Leo teach, so taught Cyril. Everlasting be the memory of Cyril. Leo and Cyril taught the same thing, anathema to him who does not so believe. This is the true faith. Those of us who are orthodox thus believe. This is the faith of the fathers.” The context shows that Cyril and Leo both taught the truth and because such unanimity of doctrine was showed, the anathema was given. This reflects collegial tradition not papal monarchy.

And the Kontakion of St. Photius the Great reads: “With garlands of chant let us crown the Church’s far-shining star, the God-inspired guide of the Orthodox, the divinely- sounded harp of the Spirit and steadfast adversary of heresy find let us cry to him: Rejoice, O most venerable Photius.” We don’t read this as saying that St. Photius the Great was the infallible Pope of the Orthodox because he is seen as “the God-inspired guide of the Orthodox.” By the same logic, neither should use see Pope Celestine as such because he is the “guardian of the faith” (a title neither more nor less than that given to St. Photius). And you cannot argue that Pope Celestine was infallible because of being the successor of Peter in the Roman See since you’ve yet to prove that the Fathers believed the apostolic infallibility of St. Peter (possessed equally by all the apostles, in any case) was transferred to the Bishop of Rome. You cannot use an opinion you’ve yet to prove.

God bless,

Adam

No offense but, you’re just one in a long line that will go to lengths, spinning round and round, to avoid the authority established by God.

God bless.

 

[jam070406]

Adam,
btw, Our Lady foretold the doctrine of Infallibilty (amongst many other things that came to pass) to a Catholic Nun close to 300 years beforehand. She also said there would be those that wouldn’t believe, so, I’m not suprised you don’t.

 

[steve_b]

Futhermore, I find that the focus on Honorius obscures the greater point that I see the Orthodox making on this forum, that is that there was no idea of papal infalliablity in the Church of the first millienium, and further that the doctrine would appear to be less than 150 years old.

When the doctrine was defined, don’t you know that every one with an axe to grind against the Catholic Church, licking their chops KNOWING they finally had the issue to bring down the CC once and forever. I had visions of Satan emptying hell just to chow down on the CC over THIS one. Well after 150 years of efforts by all conceivable people with and without agendas, it was found that no one could prove that any pope going back to Peter, ever*** taught*** error on faith and morals. Imagine THAT!!!

Jesus, pouring grace, keeping popes from teaching error on faith and morals. :bowdown2:

If there was NEVER an idea of papal infallibility as you say, how is it possible then, that no pope, on faith and morals, for 2000 years, has ever taught error?

 

[ForeverAdam]

Nobody believes the pope is incapable of erring. Pope Agatho himself asserted that Honorius had erred by “imprudently” putting down a few words. He recognized - as we do today - that there is a difference between the pope speaking, and the pope speaking infallibly. Hence, he says that Honorius’ fault has been rejected even by “pope after pope” who “intended” to speak with “the voice of the infallible Roman Church.” In other words, Pope Agatho said that a pope can speak using the infallible voice, or merely speak. Honorius was merely speaking, and imprudently so.

You said that Popes previous to Honorius have spoken infallibly, using Pope Agatho as your source. However, we have no way of knowing what these statements were and no Father ever mentioned these (supposed) infallible acts. Also, according to the dogma of Vatican I, this infallibility would be in the form of “ex cathedra” statements about faith and morals, i.e., they would pertain to dogmas. However, the only dogmas either of us know from the first millennium are from Ecumenical Councils. I think you need to revise your understanding of what Pope Agatho meant when he said previous Popes “intended to speak with the voice of the infallible Roman Church” because it doesn’t stand up to strict historical or theological analysis. A more viable interpretation of Pope Agatho’s words is that due to the Roman Church’s good record of orthodoxy that she was seen as infallible (much like in our divine services St. Basil the Great is lauded as having an “inviolate lordship” over all men) and that several Popes prior to Honorius had chosen to teach the Faith and were applauded for this. Any other interpretation runs into the problems mentioned above and is not very tenable.

Yet it is not Faith, and this is the key. The faithful will only be believing things which are not definitively revealed by God, just as we believe all sorts of things everyday without them havivng been revealed by God. If the people are mistaken about such a thing, its not relevant until such time as it is shown to have been revealed by God.

So if a teaching isn’t dogmatized or promulgated in an official way by an Ecumenical Council/Pope, we don’t know whether it has been revealed by God? I read the Holy Fathers often and I have never found this teaching of Catholicism in their writings. On the contrary, they point to the authority of Holy Tradition and view what is taught by the Church (and they did see the teaching of the Church as something occurring beyond official statements) as the message of eternal life. Your Church’s convuluted idea of unalterable dogma and unsure teaching is simply not present in the ancient Church and its faithful and would render many of their comments as incorrect for, under Catholicism’s teaching, they place too much faith in ordinary, thus possibly fallible, teachings.

Thus, Cyprian was not a heretic for believing in rebaptism. Once that was settled as having been revealed by God, then he would have been.

I’m not going to explain our position on St. Cyprian at the risk of derailing another thread. Let it suffice to say that the term “heretic” was used even by the Fathers of the 2nd and 3rd centuries. Refer back to my latest quote from St. Irenaeus in the “Pope Fiction” thread for reference of this. In the ancient Church one was a heretic whenever they clearly left Holy Tradition, which was preserved by the Churches (not just the Roman Church, mind you). An Ecumenical Council wasn’t necessary for this judgment to be rendered. If the council were necessary, no heretics could be termed such before the 4th century - a fact not substantiated. In cases of doubt like that of Nestorius, however, the council would resolve the issue. And, of course, the anathema was reserved to the council.

Now, if the pope contradicts a matter of faith, this would be an entirely different matter. Now, if it so happens that a person truly does believe the pope has done this, then there are avenues of action that such a person may take.

You need to prove from the early Church that only dogmas and other official proclaimations are matters of faith as opposed to anything the Church teaches as part of Holy Tradition.

God bless,

Adam

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I am sorry, but this does not suffice. Whenever an insignificant pronouncement by a pope is rejected by even one bishop, the Eastern Orthodox present it as proof that no papal authority was recognized. However, when pope after pope asserts profound and impactful teachings and nobody objects, this is passed off as “ignoring” it? It can’t be had both ways.

The examples offered so far don’t withstand scrutiny. For instance, Gregory did reject canon 28 of Chalcedon, and he did complain in his letters that even his suffragans ignored him on this point.

The argument that is implicit here is that during the time of Agatho Leo, and Gregory, the Western Church did recognize the universal authority of the pope, whereas the East did not. In other words, it was about the same as it is now. However, it was not until the 800s and 1000s that any schism came about from the situation. Why did the East “ignore” it for so long, then suddenly go into schism over the matter?

We didn’t go into “schism” over the matter. Your poope sent his envoy to force the issue and he excommunicated us. We just excomunicated him. Then the Crusades came into our patriarchates to forced the issue, and the rest is well, history.

The Filioque is not a sufficient response, because the concept of universal papal jurisdiction is a far more important issue than the Filioque, so far as is concerned the rational for communion. The East could easily ignore the Filioque and hold to their own formula, as do the Eastern Catholic Churches today. However, a pope who claimed to have disciplinary authority over the East, and who could, for example - and did, as in the case of Gregory for instance, - excommunicate Eastern Christians is, practically speaking, a far more important issue, and one far more needful of an open rejection.

The ones I have seen listed as excommunicated by Gregory are sees that are now in the East, but were under Rome at the time.

 

[Allyson]

When the doctrine was defined, don’t you know that every one with an axe to grind against the Catholic Church, licking their chops KNOWING they finally had the issue to bring down the CC once and forever. I had visions of Satan emptying hell just to chow down on the CC over THIS one. Well after 150 years of efforts by all conceivable people with and without agendas, it was found that no one could prove that any pope going back to Peter, ever*** taught*** error on faith and morals. Imagine THAT!!!

Jesus, pouring grace, keeping popes from teaching error on faith and morals. :bowdown2:

If there was NEVER an idea of papal infallibility as you say, how is it possible then, that no pope, on faith and morals, for 2000 years, has ever taught error?

Well, the two parts of your final question don’t quite link logically. You wouldn’t need an idea of papal infallibility in the early Church for there to be infallibility in papal teaching by definition, because it is the guidance of the Holy Spirit which guides the Church that ensures his teaching right?!

Just saying

And now that i have made a complete pain of myself.

Good Night and God Bless,
R.

 

[Allyson]

Adam,
btw, Our Lady foretold the doctrine of Infallibilty (amongst many other things that came to pass) to a Catholic Nun close to 300 years beforehand. She also said there would be those that wouldn’t believe, so, I’m not suprised you don’t.

Marian apparitions being brought up in another thread reminded me, that the Church teaches that no one needs to accept any Marian apparition as real or its contents as binding, even approved ones.

I am being a real pain now.

Just for my information, not as a slight to the good Nun. Is that the nun who I am thinking about whose writings were suppressed for a while, but who’s case is being argued by the F.I.'s? What’s her name?

Good Night again and God Bless,
R.

 

[Servus_Pio_XII]

btw, Our Lady foretold the doctrine of Infallibilty (amongst many other things that came to pass) to a Catholic Nun close to 300 years beforehand. She also said there would be those that wouldn’t believe, so, I’m not suprised you don’t.

Consistency - either infallibility was a consistent truth from the early Church, in which case it was known to the good nun, or it is a novelty which required foretelling.

Just your friendly neighbourhood argument analysis; I’m taking no sides, just pointing out a logical fallacy here or there.

 

[steve_b]

You wouldn’t need an idea of papal infallibility in the early Church for there to be infallibility in papal teaching by definition,

because it is the guidance of the Holy Spirit which guides the Church that ensures his teaching right?!

Just saying

the HS guides and ensures both.

Allyson:

And now that i have made a complete pain of myself.

Good Night and God Bless,
R.

nighty night, sweet dreams, God bless you to… :console:

 

[jam070406]

Consistency - either infallibility was a consistent truth from the early Church, in which case it was known to the good nun, or it is a novelty which required foretelling.

Just your friendly neighbourhood argument analysis; I’m taking no sides, just pointing out a logical fallacy here or there.

I don’t doubt the good nun believed her Church to be lead and protected by the Holy Spirit.

 

[jam070406]

Marian apparitions being brought up in another thread reminded me, that the Church teaches that no one needs to accept any Marian apparition as real or its contents as binding, even approved ones.

I am being a real pain now.

Just for my information, not as a slight to the good Nun. Is that the nun who I am thinking about whose writings were suppressed for a while, but who’s case is being argued by the F.I.'s? What’s her name?

Good Night again and God Bless,
R.

Never said apparitions had to be believed. Just pointing out that she mentioned Infallibilty would be strictly defined and declared dogma some 200 plus years before it happened. Strange huh?

As far your second point, I have no idea what or who you’re talking about.

The apparition I was referring to was approved by the Church.

 

[Allyson]

Never said apparitions had to be believed. Just pointing out that she mentioned Infallibilty would be strictly defined and declared dogma some 200 plus years before it happened. Strange huh?

As far your second point, I have no idea what or who you’re talking about.

The apparition I was referring to was approved by the Church.

The first point was a random thought.

The second point was that I just wanted to know her name, to see if she was the one I was thinking of. I just couldn’t remember the name of the one I was thinking of. Sorry if I was confusing…looking for it…here.

I was just wondering if it was the same lady. I have no opinion on the apparitions either way.

God Bless,
R.

 

[jam070406]

The first point was a random thought.

The second point was that I just wanted to know her name, to see if she was the one I was thinking of. I just couldn’t remember the name of the one I was thinking of. Sorry if I was confusing…looking for it…here.

I was just wondering if it was the same lady. I have no opinion on the apparitions either way.

God Bless,
R.

Her name is Venerable Mother Mariana de Jesus Torres.

 

[Allyson]

Her name is Venerable Mother Mariana de Jesus Torres.

Cool, thanks!

Happy Easter!

God Bless,
Rosemary

 

[Hesychios]

There are a lot of ideas out there. People say many things, even today, that may become true.

If the BVM is ever formally declared Mediatrix of ALL Graces via dogma I am sure there will be no shortage of quotes to be had of people ‘predicting’ that it would happen, thus ‘proving’ that it was always intended to be. I have read here many times posters stating “when” it is declared a dogma, nor “if” it is ever declared dogma (so sure are they). Some people act like every favorite cause initiated for sainthood is eventually going to be approved, and lament over how slow the process is (as if by speeding up the process there is no danger of the cause being rejected).

The most common negative predictions I have heard and read are things like “there will be mass apostasy” and “priests will lose their vocations” and stuff like that. Who doesn’t believe that such things may happen, even multiple times if the world goes on long enough?

But what does this mean? Does it mean God is planting these ideas in peoples heads? Or are they coming to these conclusions of their own power? Do they uniquely tap into the Cosmic Mind, or are they lucky guessers?

Some causes are along the lines of “sacred cows” (I don’t mean that in a pejorative sense, it’s a figure of speech), so for these any proposed embellishment is either eagerly sought or not resisted, while any proposed diminution is greeted with hostility. That leaves only one direction the trend can ultimately move in among that crowd. It can be like the trend to centralize power in the Executive Branch of a civil authority, the long term trend is always in the direction of accumulated power, the momentary reversal usually occurs only through the occasional disruption over abuses.

For most posters here at CAF Marian ideas and Papal causes certainly fall into that category. They are unassailable in one sense, they only stabilize or can grow, not diminish.

Is it a sign of sanctity that some people can discern trends or be vocal advocates for sectarian ideas? Or is it like reading tea leaves?

My prediction is the Papal church will pull much further away from Holy Orthodoxy in the long term. It seems inevitable to me. It’s not an expression of my desire.

Michael

 

[Allyson]

There are a lot of ideas out there. People say many things, even today, that may become true.

If the BVM is ever formally declared Mediatrix of ALL Graces via dogma I am sure there will be no shortage of quotes to be had of people ‘predicting’ that it would happen, thus ‘proving’ that it was always intended to be. I have read here many times posters stating “when” it is declared a dogma, nor “if” it is ever declared dogma (so sure are they). Some people act like every favorite cause initiated for sainthood is eventually going to be approved, and lament over how slow the process is (as if by speeding up the process there is no danger of the cause being rejected).

The most common negative predictions I have heard and read are things like “there will be mass apostasy” and “priests will lose their vocations” and stuff like that. Who doesn’t believe that such things may happen, even multiple times if the world goes on long enough?

But what does this mean? Does it mean God is planting these ideas in peoples heads? Or are they coming to these conclusions of their own power? Do they uniquely tap into the Cosmic Mind, or are they lucky guessers?

Some causes are along the lines of “sacred cows” (I don’t mean that in a pejorative sense, it’s a figure of speech), so for these any proposed embellishment is either eagerly sought or not resisted, while any proposed diminution is greeted with hostility. That leaves only one direction the trend can ultimately move in among that crowd. It can be like the trend to centralize power in the Executive Branch of a civil authority, the long term trend is always in the direction of accumulated power, the momentary reversal usually occurs only through the occasional disruption over abuses.

For most posters here at CAF Marian ideas and Papal causes certainly fall into that category. They are unassailable in one sense, they only stabilize or can grow, not diminish.

Is it a sign of sanctity that some people can discern trends or be vocal advocates for sectarian ideas? Or is it like reading tea leaves?

My prediction is the Papal church will pull much further away from Holy Orthodoxy in the long term. It seems inevitable to me. It’s not an expression of my desire.

Michael

Michael,

I think that you have given a good analysis of the modern Catholic mind on these issues. Private revelations are used both to promote a cause for a dogma and to show that a dogma was legitimately proclaimed, yet no believing Christian, Catholic or otherwise, is required to believe in any private revelation. Moreover, I think that the more traditional Catholic position is to downplay private revelation. To paraphrase a paraphrase of St. John of the Cross. ‘If you see Mary when you are taking a walk, ignore her, and if it is really her, she will understand.’ Visions are considered to be very dangerous, because they may not be of who they are purporting to be. That supernatural visions or experiences of any sort could very likely be Satan attempting to to deceive you. St. John of the Cross was very clear on this, and he was know for his ecstasies, etc.

Even, when private revelations are approved and found to be legitimately who they are supposed to be, it is still emphasized that it is private revelation, and that no one need hold to it.

On a related note; when taking a Mariology Class with a well-known Mariologist who is a promoter of the Mary Mediatrix, Advocate, Coredemtrix being declared Dogma, Dr. Mark Miravalle, we were told that one of the affirmations that we had of different dogma’s on Mary - specifically the Immaculate Conception - was that Mary, in appartitions, never mentioned them by named until after these were declared dogma, but that with the fifth doctrine, she has mentioned it in an apparition (Lady of all Nations I think - which is no where near being accepted like Fatima has been), and this is a sign of how important it is that it be declared Dogma. This has always struck me as a bit odd, right from the moment I heard it. It seems to be inconsistent on the one hand to say that it is proper that Mary waits to mention a Dogma by name until after, but that now is important that she does it before hand. This is not meant to be a slight to a professor whom, I like very much. It is part of being a student - past or present - to disagree when you disagree. (Please Note: this is not meant to express my feeling on the content of the doctrine itself, just the use of private revelation.)

Time to return to my thesis. :hypno:

God Bless,

Rosemary

 

[Mickey]

If indeed Honorius was condemned as a heretic, then the arguments I have made will prove to be fallacious. However, you must show why they are, rather than merely citing the declaration, because my arguments are designed to show the true meaning of the declaration.

He WAS condemned as a heretic. Your argument is not important nor valid. The Council speaks for itself. I do not have to prove anything.
It is odd that you feel that your arguments somehow show the **TRUE **meaning of the Council.

Oh yeah, and your false dichotomy using the protestant analogies are not convincing.

 

[Mickey]

Not one Orthodox disputes primacy…they dispute infallibility and supremacy.

Please don’t bait, baiters never win.

Thank you Servus–well said.

 

[Image_of_God]

He WAS condemned as a heretic. Your argument is not important nor valid. The Council speaks for itself. I do not have to prove anything.
It is odd that you feel that your arguments somehow show the **TRUE **meaning of the Council.

Oh yeah, and your false dichotomy using the protestant analogies are not convincing.

You probably already know this, but Honorius was condemned as a heretic not because of anything he taught, but only because he refused to object to those teachings.