H
Hesychios
Guest
The papal office is not the Pope?
Jesus Christ gave the keys to an office?
It has a life of it’s own?
OK, if you say so…
- Status
Jesus Christ gave the keys to an office?
It has a life of it’s own?
OK, if you say so…
H
Hesychios
Guest
The significant fact here is that a heretic can have Universal Jurisdiction over the entire church…theoretically. It is actually this function of the bishop of Rome that justifies concentrating the infallibility of the church in this one person. If he did not have universal jurisdiction, the infallibility of the church would have to manifest itself in a form encompassing those who do have jurisdiction.
Since only the bishop of Rome may call a Council, or approve one, or even use a line-item veto on the results of a Council, there does not seem to be any way of removing the miscreant anymore.
He can do many things…almost any conceivable thing, even by refraining from action…which may be an endangerment to the church and faithful. He may abet a heresy, like Honorius seems to have done, is that not an abuse of teaching authority?
Michael
I
Image_of_God
Guest
That’s a shocker?The papal office is not the Pope?
Jesus Christ gave the keys to an office?
It has a life of it’s own?
OK, if you say so…
No the papal office is not the Pope. That’s why it remains immaculate despite the sins of the Pope. Also, if the papal office were the Pope, then it would “die” everytime a Pope did.
A
Allyson
Guest
This reminds me of a post I came across on another thread (POST HERE), long buried, where a Catholic poster presented the following view of Papal Infalliabity:
(Please Read in Full Context too.)
I can say, that as a Catholic, I don’t think that I ever understood it that way, because there would the be required a violation of Apostolic teaching. There would have to be admitted a change in the teaching. This is exactly what the Orthodox are concerned about and which they would guard against. I don’t think that the post quoted represents Catholic teaching well on this point, so I hesitated to bring it up for a while, but it demonstrates a misunderstanding of the teaching that must be avoided by Catholics. (I did not want to appear to picking on anyone.)
I would also point out that as you read on (the full post linked above), the poster very clearly finds there to be a problem. The poster sees the conflict which arises with the issue, which is the subject of the thread (the filioque and the nature of God). It is this potential conflict between papal pronouncements on any particular issue, which is at issue here, and which we should examine to see if it really can be avoided, or if papal infalliabity will not hold up?
Some questions for discussion:
So first, what are the limits of Papal Infallibility? [Magisterial?]
Is Papal Infallibility in some sense redundant of something that already exists? [Deposit of Faith?]
Can a Pope make a public statement which is heretical, but not ex cathedra, but that can be taken as ‘gospel truth’ (to use an old saying)? [Like say in a homily?]
Just some questions for discussion. I have to stop procrastinating on polishing a paper, so I will leave it at this.
God Bless,
Rosemary
I
Image_of_God
Guest
Dear Rosemary,
I’m no expert on Apologetics because there is so much about the Catholic Faith that I don’t know about. But if you are questioning Papal Infallibility, you should probably start here.
Read especially Marduk’s Posts in this thread.
He is far more knowledgeable in many areas of Catholicism that I am.
J
JJR1453
Guest
Hello all,
In my studies and resaerch of the two views of Papal primacy between Orthodoxy and Catholicism there seems to be one major difference in how they view, not only the primacy of the bishop of Rome, but also history itself. The bone of contention in question is none other than- the development of doctrine. Ive found that more than anything, with quite a few exceptions, the Orthodox rather not touch on the subject while Catholicism views it as a constant reality embedded in the essence of the Church. Of course Orthodoxy has a ready answer. Development of doctrine in the west is the result of romanticism and causes pertaining to the enlightenment and so and so forth. In the inadequate arguements Ive found from Orthodoxy there never seems to be a real answer to the councils and how their declaration of faith comes to be if there is nary a stinch of development attached to them. That also begs the question that if the deposit of faith given by the Apostles is and has always been known in the same light(which would do no small injustice to historical realities) then why was it so hard for the east to accept the declarations that were declared at Nicea? It was a truth of faith that was not always seen in the same clarity as it did in later times. Enter the papacy. Ive also found many Catholic apologists that seem to tweak history in order to prove their points. For me, a devout Catholic, I see no need to pervert historical realities in order to prove a point when in fact many times Catholic lay on the wrong side in such issues. I completely agree that the east has never really acknowledged the primacy of the bishop of Rome as did the west. Of course this isnt so for some very notable Eastern church fathers but I speak more so as from the whole. One such point of issue that always puzzled me about the east’s view of Rome. The easterns loudly proclaim “Leo has spoken through Peter”, but yet I hear from many Orthodox that Rome gathers its primacy of honour only from its prestigious political city, something that seems contrary to many notable easterns’ words. I plan on posting more in the near future however at the moment Im pressed for time. Here’s to an un-biased dialogue between Orthodox and Catholic wherein at first glance at the surface of conversation both seem to have very good points:thumbsup:
God Bless,
JJR
In my studies and resaerch of the two views of Papal primacy between Orthodoxy and Catholicism there seems to be one major difference in how they view, not only the primacy of the bishop of Rome, but also history itself. The bone of contention in question is none other than- the development of doctrine. Ive found that more than anything, with quite a few exceptions, the Orthodox rather not touch on the subject while Catholicism views it as a constant reality embedded in the essence of the Church. Of course Orthodoxy has a ready answer. Development of doctrine in the west is the result of romanticism and causes pertaining to the enlightenment and so and so forth. In the inadequate arguements Ive found from Orthodoxy there never seems to be a real answer to the councils and how their declaration of faith comes to be if there is nary a stinch of development attached to them. That also begs the question that if the deposit of faith given by the Apostles is and has always been known in the same light(which would do no small injustice to historical realities) then why was it so hard for the east to accept the declarations that were declared at Nicea? It was a truth of faith that was not always seen in the same clarity as it did in later times. Enter the papacy. Ive also found many Catholic apologists that seem to tweak history in order to prove their points. For me, a devout Catholic, I see no need to pervert historical realities in order to prove a point when in fact many times Catholic lay on the wrong side in such issues. I completely agree that the east has never really acknowledged the primacy of the bishop of Rome as did the west. Of course this isnt so for some very notable Eastern church fathers but I speak more so as from the whole. One such point of issue that always puzzled me about the east’s view of Rome. The easterns loudly proclaim “Leo has spoken through Peter”, but yet I hear from many Orthodox that Rome gathers its primacy of honour only from its prestigious political city, something that seems contrary to many notable easterns’ words. I plan on posting more in the near future however at the moment Im pressed for time. Here’s to an un-biased dialogue between Orthodox and Catholic wherein at first glance at the surface of conversation both seem to have very good points:thumbsup:
God Bless,
JJR
I
Image_of_God
Guest
You mean, “Peter has spoken through Leo”?
J
JJR1453
Guest
haha…Ya! blasted right thru that post I guess huh?You mean, “Peter has spoken through Leo”?
I
Image_of_God
Guest
Yes, I did originally.haha…Ya! blasted right thru that post I guess huh?
But then I went back and read the content. You are correct when you say that there is a lot of considerable words from the Fathers (especially the Eastern Fathers) that seem to indicate to Rome more than a “primacy of honor.”
J
JJR1453
Guest
No, I meant that I blasted right thru that post with my mis-quote of the council fathers gathered at Chalcedon.Yes, I did originally.
A
Allyson
Guest
My questions, while they are really my questions, are ordered towards the discussion of the thread. They are not me questioning the doctrine itself, but asking about how it is understood in the Catholic Church, popularly v. how it was actually defined. In other words, I see the points that some of our Orthodox bothers (and sisters ?) are making, and I am putting out questions that I think might facilitate the discussion, and being rather new to the Forum, perhaps I have missed them being discussed before. The first link you gave puts Papal Infallibility [PI] in the context of the broader Infallibility of the Church. (I was actually going to check that site out on my own sometime - next week - as one source, but at the moment I have a much bigger fish to fry that has nothing to do with the forum).With the first question I was trying to step back away from PI in itself, to its context within/out of the Magesterium. The same with the second. The third was, well, me being difficult.
I was worried that the questions would come across the wrong way, that is why I said
In many ways, I am developing a different understanding of things than I had growing up and as a younger adult, and I have been a bit of a chameleon on the threads. Papal Infallibility is not cut and dry, easy to understand, or easy to identify (sometimes ex cathedra sometimes in other instances). Really, the definition itself is still being defined - by which I mean understanding its practical use. Catholics have had a tendency to treat nearly everything a Pope says as nearly infallible. This is one extreme, and the other is to ignore what he says.
It is late, and I am beginning to ramble. I really did not have time earlier to do anything more than pose questions, so please excuse me from providing thoughts now. Next week will be much better.
Good Night and God Bless,
Rosemary
F
ForeverAdam
Guest
Obviously, there is a difference between the papal office and the person of the Pope. However, there doesn’t seem to be a strict distinction between the “papal office” (limited to work with ecumenical councils and ex cathedra statements) and the common teachings and actions that carried the Pope’s name, in the ancient Church. Such a distinction is very arbitrary and is not reflected in the Fathers and even the words of pre-Schism Popes who, at their most papal, attributed “any good” they did to St. Peter (cf. Pope St. Leo the Great’s homily on his Elevation to the Pontificate). Therefore, until you can prove that there exists in the early Church such a clean distinction between what modern Catholicism views as the “papal office” and the common teachings/actions of the Pope, my comment stands and demands an explanation as to why such fallible men can be given such a hefty responsibility in maintaining the Faith of the Church. Btw, I would add that the apostles did have infallibility when they were writing Holy Scripture and establishing the Church, while Popes are always mentioned as being capable of error without any stipulations as to when this cannot happen (thus implicitly confirming my statement that the early Church didn’t limit the papal office in the manner that modern Catholicism does).
God bless,
Adam
F
ForeverAdam
Guest
Excellent points. The fact that Catholicism only extends papal infallibility to ex cathedra statements, while giving her papal office many other duties, while rather paradoxically affirming that Popes can always err outside of ex cathedra statements bespeaks an ecclesiology still in formation (as opposed to passed down as part of Holy Tradition) that still must complete its break with the previous ecclesiology. This has the earmarks of innovation, which must co-exist uncomfortably with contradictions until it is fully established.
God bless,
Adam
M
Mickey
Guest
M
Mickey
Guest
"I am Tradition!" (Pope Pius IX)
W
wisdomseeker
Guest
Well, what does this means? why not the chair of St Paul, or St Andrew, or St John or being in some place other than Rome?
F
ForeverAdam
Guest
I will add that your comment contrasting the papal office and the person of the Pope is quite apt. However, it raises more questions than it answers. I assume you would hold that Popes could only exercise the “immaculate papal office” when they make a choice to be orthodox, since we both admit that Popes can become heretics. If this is the case, what purpose does the papal office serve? Seriously, if the Pope can convene, chair and confirm ecumenical councils, be the final arbiter of truth for the Church, have universal jurisdiction and make ex cathedra statements only when he chooses to be orthodox, he hardly rises above any Orthodox Bishop, whose ministry is also conditional on their confession of Holy Tradition. In fact, under the Roman Catholic system, we would have to admit that Christ established a system that could fail the Church even when she would most need it (e.g. even during times of great heresy, the Pope himself could fall and thus leave his office unexercised). These possibilities of non-exercise of the papal office reveal that the episcopal office truly is the supreme authority in the Church and not the papacy, as we always have the promise of bishops in the Church, while Popes may always fall into heresy and lose their office (makes you wonder how essential Popes are to the essence of the Church when they can be lacking in the Church for any period of time outside of death). These observations are not good for the claims that God instituted the papacy as an office for his Church and lends much credence to the claim that any rights of the Pope are honorary – something fitting for an office so conditional in its applications. And it also strengthens our claim that whatever honor the Pope of Rome possesses, he is still a bishop, who can benefit the Church only like all other bishops, viz., by his choice to teach Holy Tradition.
God bless,
Adam
I
Image_of_God
Guest
My distinction is by no means arbitrary. It’s merely practical. The Pope is human and makes mistakes. The office is pure and faultless. There must be a distinction somewhere.
You allude to the fact that the Apostles were given infallibility when writing Scripture. But that doesn’t change the fact that they were fallible men. You questioned why the Church gives a position of such importance to fallible men. I answered by asking: Why did Jesus gave such positions of importance to fallible men? You said that the Church shouldn’t and I answered that if that were the case, the Jesus should have spread the Gospel himself.
I haven’t found where in the Fathers’ writings there is a distinction, but if I do, I will respond.
H
Hesychios
Guest
H
Hesychios
Guest
It’s your church’s feast: the Feast of the Chair of Saint Pater at Antioch. You will have to explain it. Interesting that your church dropped the “at Antioch” part later, I suppose it was a matter of convenience.
The other Apostles had chairs all over the East as well. All of the Apostles, Peter among them, were all over the east, there are many Apostolic Sees. These were culturally advanced and prosperous cities with classically educated clergy. Even under the Caliphs they produced great theologions like Saint John Damascene.
Of course, in the west, there was only one Apostolic See. So for westerners, Rome seemed to be the only Apostolic See. After the church at Rome converted to a Latin liturgy, Greek fell out as a training necessity for the priesthood, and a whole body of theological literature was then generally unavailable to them.
Soon, after plagues, invasions and economic collapse, the population declined, public works fell into ruin, schools closed.
The west was in such a bad state for a while, the economy was in the toilet and literacy plummeted to single digits, that the Merovingian and Carolingian monarchs were appointing to the episcopate very illiterate and sycophantic men from families connected to the crown. Many if not most of these Frankish bishops had no real theological training at all, and their Latin was horrible.
Concubinage was still common among the elites, and bishops and priests kept them. Abbies were “owned” by powerful families and Abbots usually were absent, often at their hunting lodges spending the income provided by the monasteries.
So secular were clerics, that many bishops even rode off to battle on warhorses to smash heads for their princes and benefactors, they were a pretty dissolute bunch.
I stated earlier that the bishops of the Carolingian empire were so disreputable and ill educated that they were not invited to the Seventh Ecumenical Council.
Rome itself plunged to a population of some 40,000 or less by the time of Charlemagne (from a high of over one million in late antiquity). The city was a real cultural backwater dominated by petty princes and distant monarchs. Even Popes were appointed by emperors and kings, the College of Cardinal electors did not exist until centuries later.
Bishops in Spain and Gaul routinely ignored the Popes opinion.
It was a time when ‘Trial by Ordeal’ (introduced by the Franks)was considered serious jurisprudence in western Europe, sanctioned by the bishops. The people allowed superstition, visionaries and mythmakers to dominate their thinking.
Someone claiming to be Isadore of Seville compiled a large list of fabrications about the church, even Popes were taken in by the fraud and promoted the forgeries.
The Papacy was born.
Michael
- Status