Perspective on East-West 1054 Great Schism

[manualman]

I’m no scholar and I could be off, so feel free to refute me. But it seems suspiciously to me like the EO developed a rather anti-intellectual approach to faith and theology after the final break with Rome.

Maybe it’s just here on CAF, but I seem to consistently hear EO criticize catholicism for being legalistic, rationalistic, rigid, etc because we’ve continued to try to develop logical and rational practice and doctrine based on the revelation we both share and agree to. Thus, they criticize “transubstantiation” as being overly intellectualized when to me the process of determining what the Real Presence is and is not is quite similar to the process the entire church used to determine what the Trinity is and is not. But in the former case, it’s like the EO have foresworn the use of reason and logic to determine true implications from genuine revelation. I don’t get it.

But I do wonder if it’s related to the rejection of the papacy. Once the papacy was gone, so too was the last arbiter of disputes. Is it possible that the lack of a place where the “buck stops” lead to a reluctance to allow the Holy Spirit to continue to refine the understanding of the deposit of faith?

In some ways, it seems eerily similar to the protestant revolution or today’s SSPX rebels. In all three cases, there seems to be a line drawn at some arbitrary point at which people will admit to no further work of the Holy Spirit in helping us to more deeply comprehend the deposit of faith. No new ideas past a certain line in the sand can have merit.

Or maybe I’m rambling and it’s time to go home. It could be that!

 

[Abu]

Gabriel of 12 #20
So long as the Roman Pope is free, there is no such thing as an ecumenical council, because what made it ecumenical was the Emperor who possessed the title ecumenical.

In fact as Fr John A Hardon, S.J., points out:
ECUMENICAL. Literally “universal” and commonly used to identify the general councils of the Church. With the rise of the movement for Christian unity, it has become synonymous with “striving for reunification” among the separated Churches of Christendom. (Etym. Latin oecumenicus; from Greek oikoumenē, the inhabited world.)

There have been 21 Ecumenical Councils which he lists, so the assertion made by “Gabriel of 12” is incorrect.

Cardinal Burke has pointed to the problem self-created by the Orthodox as follows:

Cardinal Burke: What the Pope Really Meant
by John Burger 11/23/2010
Seewald also brought up a question in regard to the declaration Dominus Iesus, and the Holy Father simply said that it’s too complex an issue to deal with in the setting of the interview.

*In that discussion about unity with the Orthodox that you reference, Seewald asks, “Will Pope Benedict restructure the papacy in order to foster the unity of Christianity?” The Holy Father corrects Seewald in his interpretation of the phrase “First among equals” applying to the successor of St. Peter. He says it is not the formula we believe as Catholics and adds, “The pope has specific functions and tasks. … The question (for the Orthodox) is precisely whether the pope has specific tasks or not.” What tasks is he speaking of? *

The pope is the principal and foundation of the unity of the Church. That can’t be carried out by a group of people. That is the function of Peter as the head of the apostolic college, the Prince of the Apostles. To put it very plainly, that’s the first task. He is the bishop of the universal Church, and it’s a difficult point for the Orthodox to accept, but one can’t be faithful to Catholic teaching and say that the Roman pontiff is simply one more patriarch. No, he has a service to unite all — all the patriarchs, all the particular churches into one. And that involves a direct and universal governance.
ncregister.com/daily-news/cardinal-burke-what-the-pope-really-meant/

 

[Nine_Two]

I’m no scholar and I could be off, so feel free to refute me. But it seems suspiciously to me like the EO developed a rather anti-intellectual approach to faith and theology after the final break with Rome.

Maybe it’s just here on CAF, but I seem to consistently hear EO criticize catholicism for being legalistic, rationalistic, rigid, etc because we’ve continued to try to develop logical and rational practice and doctrine based on the revelation we both share and agree to. Thus, they criticize “transubstantiation” as being overly intellectualized when to me the process of determining what the Real Presence is and is not is quite similar to the process the entire church used to determine what the Trinity is and is not. But in the former case, it’s like the EO have foresworn the use of reason and logic to determine true implications from genuine revelation. I don’t get it.

But I do wonder if it’s related to the rejection of the papacy. Once the papacy was gone, so too was the last arbiter of disputes. Is it possible that the lack of a place where the “buck stops” lead to a reluctance to allow the Holy Spirit to continue to refine the understanding of the deposit of faith?

In some ways, it seems eerily similar to the protestant revolution or today’s SSPX rebels. In all three cases, there seems to be a line drawn at some arbitrary point at which people will admit to no further work of the Holy Spirit in helping us to more deeply comprehend the deposit of faith. No new ideas past a certain line in the sand can have merit.

Or maybe I’m rambling and it’s time to go home. It could be that!

I agree with your point - that Orthodoxy developed away from what you call intellectualism (I’d call it proto-scholasticism, we have always had our intellectuals), however I don’t agree with the reasoning.

During the First Millennium, the East was wealthy, and most importantly secure, meanwhile the West was poor and over-run with marauding conquerors. So during this time, unsurprisingly almost all thought came out of the East, and I would argue that what we now call scholasticism began to develop.

But along with this thinking arose great heresies and other divisions within the Church.

I think it was an acknowledgement that putting so much emphasis on expanding our understanding of these things which were ultimately mysteries could only hurt the faith.

Orthodox theological thought went elsewhere, while the West gradually grew richer, and more secure, and eventually developed Scholastic thought much more thoroughly than the East ever did, and… well, it suffered the same things the East did.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Abu;10933831]

There have been 21 Ecumenical Councils which he lists, so the assertion made by “Gabriel of 12” is incorrect.

Hello Abu; I am addressing the first 7 ecumenical councils that the Orthodox hold too. I think you jumped the gun here, Most Orthodox don’t recognize any more Ecumenical councils aftter the first 7 ecumenical councils. It is from these first 7 Ecumenical councils that have an Emperor attached to them.

My point is that the title ecumenical was applied to the Emperors who over saw the first 7 Ecumenical councils.

Can you prove that your 14 other Ecumenical councils had an Eastern or Western Emperor overseeing the proceedings which the Orthodox hold too?

The term Ecumenical does not have the same emphasis today as it did with the first 7 Ecumenical councils which applied to the Emperor’s title. That is all I have stated here, anything you have added is not my application.

Can you point out what I have stated is incorrect please and thank you?

 

[Abu]

As noted, not only does ecumenical mean universal but the fact that the Orthodox choose to limit themselves to 7 Ecumenical Councils merely defines the limitations of their own choosing which extend to Papal primacy and infallibility. Further regressions from doctrine are expressed in the Orthodox rejecting the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, and permitting divorce and remarriage.

As Dr Warren Carroll has pointed out in The Building of Christendom, 1987, (Vol. 2 of A History of Christendom), p 365, note 80: “There can be no reasonable doubt that St Athanasius as Patriarch of Alexandria and St John Chrysostom as Patriarch of Constantinople fully recognised and accepted Papal primacy (Chapters 1 & 3).”

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Abu;10934911]As noted, not only does ecumenical mean universal but the fact that the Orthodox choose to limit themselves to 7 Ecumenical Councils merely defines the limitations of their own choosing which extend to Papal primacy and infallibility.

Abu; you pointed out that “ecumenical” means universal. Does this definition include both the Orthodox, Protestants and Catholics today as well as other faith’s? And did all these participate in the 21 or last 14 ecumenical councils you introduced?

Does your ecumenical=Universal definition apply only to the whole of Christendom?

The first 7 Ecumenical councils occurred when both Orthodox and Catholic’s were in unity without schism. It was during these 7 ecumenical councils that no Protestant faith’s or denominations existed. The reason for the 7 ecumenical councils defeated heresy’s and heretics.

The difference I have brought up using the term “ecumenical” from the early Church included the whole of Christendom and it included the secular power’s.

Who and what does your “ecumenical” = universal definition include?

I believe if we can distinguish the particulars of the early ecumenical councils having secular powers attached to them, sheds light on the schism.

For one there were no ecumenical councils before pre-Nicea. Just the Popes and bishops while under persecution defeating heresy’s and heretics in the whole of Christendom.

We never hear of any “ecumenical” councils until Post-Nicea when the Emperor’s included themselves while the Church counciled giving it the name “Ecumenical” which was one of the titles for the Emperor’s.

As far as the Primacy of the Pope’s is concerned, the Orthodox recognize the Primacy of the bishop’s of Rome. But wish to redefine it after the Emperor appointed a patriarch in his new captial Constantinople that leads us up to the great schism of 1054 a.d.

**Today, Orthodox view the primacy of Peter again, but not as Vatican I defines the primacy and Infallibility. I would argue for clarification from the Orthodox here, because if they accept the primacy of the Peter prior to Vatican I, then why did the Patriarch’s of Constantinople challenge or oppose the primacy of the bishop of Rome between the council of Trullo and 1054 a.d. I am not addressing the false accussations made by the Patriarch’s of Constantinople against the Pope’s, I am addressing the Primacy of Peter and it’s recognition by the Emperor’s and the early councils.

Peace be with you**

 

[manualman]

I agree with your point - that Orthodoxy developed away from what you call intellectualism (I’d call it proto-scholasticism, we have always had our intellectuals), however I don’t agree with the reasoning.

During the First Millennium, the East was wealthy, and most importantly secure, meanwhile the West was poor and over-run with marauding conquerors. So during this time, unsurprisingly almost all thought came out of the East, and I would argue that what we now call scholasticism began to develop.

But along with this thinking arose great heresies and other divisions within the Church.

I think it was an acknowledgement that putting so much emphasis on expanding our understanding of these things which were ultimately mysteries could only hurt the faith.

Orthodox theological thought went elsewhere, while the West gradually grew richer, and more secure, and eventually developed Scholastic thought much more thoroughly than the East ever did, and… well, it suffered the same things the East did.

So the entire church would have been better off had we simply been satisfied with the gospel revelations that God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit? All the subsequent talk whereby we ruled out false understandings of what that meant and defined the Trinity as being three “persons”, but one God was all just dangerous speculation that we should never have bothered with?

I don’t think you really think that. But surely you must admit that we’d not have ruled out false understandings of the Trinity had we not had those arguments, fights and battles against heretical understandings? Even the Arians believed in Father, Son and Holy Spirit in a sense. I doubt you’re suggesting that the church would have been better off leaving the issue vague to avoid the fighting.

So why apply that policy to OTHER issues of revelation? It seems like a break with our shared history. That’s what I don’t get about the EO approach to theology.

 

[johnnykins]

Second, the authority to change the Creed was agreed upon by all (including Rome) in the Second Ecumenical Council. It is not a notion out of thin air that the East believed, it is a canon set in stone by the entire Church.

Not really, except by those who want to believe that. I won’t quote the entire article, but what was meant is not “a canon set in stone.” That there is ambiguity in the canon is clear. That some would chose to make that ambiguity a basis for schism belies other issues that are the real basis for the split - politics, xenophobia, arrogance, etc.

“1. That the prohibition was passed by the Council immediately after it had heard Charisius read his creed, which it had approved, and on the strength of which it had received its author, and after the reading of a Nestorian creed which it condemned. From this it seems clear that ἑτέραν must mean “different,” “contradictory,” and not “another” in the sense of mere explanatory additions to the already existing creed. “(E. B. Pusey, On the Clause “and the Son,” p. 81.)

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.x.xvi.xi.html

 

[Nine_Two]

So the entire church would have been better off had we simply been satisfied with the gospel revelations that God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit? All the subsequent talk whereby we ruled out false understandings of what that meant and defined the Trinity as being three “persons”, but one God was all just dangerous speculation that we should never have bothered with?

I don’t think you really think that. But surely you must admit that we’d not have ruled out false understandings of the Trinity had we not had those arguments, fights and battles against heretical understandings? Even the Arians believed in Father, Son and Holy Spirit in a sense. I doubt you’re suggesting that the church would have been better off leaving the issue vague to avoid the fighting.

So why apply that policy to OTHER issues of revelation? It seems like a break with our shared history. That’s what I don’t get about the EO approach to theology.

No, the big issues certainly needed to be worked out. The nature of God and his relationship to Christ. But eventually it turned to defining the unimportant. The whole faith versus works argument, justification (Look to your own salvation with fear and trembling), that sort of thing.

 

[rfournier103]

I’m reading into the second ( of five) volumes of (historian) Yaroslav Pelikan’s History of the Christian Tradition: the development of doctrine.

The schism occurred in 1054, when the Pope excommunicated the patriarch of Constantinople, Michael Cerularius.

The schism has two main roots. A point covered many times in these forums is the doctrinal issue of the use of the “filioque” [and the Son]. The issue is whether the Holy Spirit proceeds only from the Father [the Eastern position], or from the Father and the Son [the Western position].

The second root was about the ecclesiology of the church, or, who is in charge. The East claims that only an ecumenical council, not the Pope, could update the Nicene-Constantinopolitan creed, which was developed in some [Eastern] councils.

So, a schism actually occurred in 1054, but it was based on theological disputes that started in the fourth century.

Very interesting… To think that we are so close… yet…

Never knew about the “Filioque”. VERY interesting indeed…

 

[Zekariya]

Second, the authority to change the Creed was agreed upon by all (including Rome) in the Second Ecumenical Council. It is not a notion out of thin air that the East believed, it is a canon set in stone by the entire Church.

THE NICENE CREED WITH THE CONSTANTINOPOLITAN CREED BRACKETED

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker [of heaven and earth, and] of all things visible and invisible;

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Only-begotten, Begotten of the Father before all worlds, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, Begotten, not made; of one essence with the Father, by whom all things were made:

Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate [of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary,] and was made man;

[And was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate,] and suffered [and was buried];

And the third day He rose again, [according to the Scriptures;] And ascended into heaven, [and sitteth at the right hand of the Father;]

And He shall come [again with glory] to judge the quick and the dead, [Whose kingdom shall have no end.]

And I believe in the Holy Spirit, [the Lord, and Giver of Life, Who proceedeth from the Father, Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, Who spake by the Prophets; And I believe in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. I acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins. I look for the Resurrection of the dead. And the Life of the world to come. Amen.]

But those who say: ‘There was a time when he was not;’ and ‘He was not before he was made;’ and ‘He was made out of nothing,’ or ‘He is of another substance’ or ‘essence,’ or ‘The Son of God is created,’ or ‘changeable,’ or ‘alterable’—they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church.

---

When these things had been read, the holy Synod decreed that it is unlawful for any man to bring forward, or to write, or to compose a different (ἑτέραν) Faith as a rival to that established by the holy Fathers assembled with the Holy Ghost in Nicæa.
But those who shall dare to compose a different faith, or to introduce or offer it to persons desiring to turn to the acknowledgment of the truth, whether from Heathenism or from Judaism, or from any heresy whatsoever, shall be deposed, if they be bishops or clergymen; bishops from the episcopate and clergymen from the clergy; and if they be laymen, they shall be anathematized.
And in like manner, if any, whether bishops, clergymen, or laymen, should be discovered to hold or teach the doctrines contained in the Exposition introduced by the Presbyter Charisius concerning the Incarnation of the Only-Begotten Son of God, or the abominable and profane doctrines of Nestorius, which are subjoined, they shall be subjected to the sentence of this holy and ecumenical Synod. So that, if it be a bishop, he shall be removed from his bishopric and degraded; if it be a clergyman, he shall likewise be stricken from the clergy; and if it be a layman, he shall be anathematized, as has been afore said.

• Council of Ephesus, Canon VII
  ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.x.xvi.x.html

We prohibit any change whatsoever in the Creed of Faith drawn up by the holy Nicene fathers. We do not allow ourselves or anyone else to change or omit one word or syllable in that Creed.

• Council of Ephesus, St Cyril of Alexandria

First of all, please notice how, in the quotes from Canon VII of Ephesus and St. Cyril of Alexandria above, the prohibition is not against adding to the Creed of Constantinople I (A.D. 381), but rather adding to the Creed “defined by the holy fathers who convened in the city of Nicaea” (A.D. 325); and, as we already observed, the Creed of Nicaea makes no mention of the Spirit’s procession, but merely reads: “[We believe] in the Holy Spirit… (followed by a direct anathema against Arianism.)” St Cyril never acknowledged the Council of Constantinople which attempted to place Constantinople above Alexandria.

 

[manualman]

No, the big issues certainly needed to be worked out. The nature of God and his relationship to Christ. But eventually it turned to defining the unimportant. The whole faith versus works argument, justification (Look to your own salvation with fear and trembling), that sort of thing.

But that’s the rub, isn’t it? By what authority can one state that all the important issues have been settled and that there is no more need for authoritative doctrinal decisions?

I don’t mean to harp, but it seems to me that the EO have adopted that position, but can’t reasonably demonstrate why it is so or on what basis they have reached that conclusion.

It’s important to have clear reasons when line in the sand are drawn, especially since it seems to be such a common feature of infighting in the church. For protestants, nothing after the last line of Scripture has authority, for the SSPX, nothing from Vatican II or later matters, for modern western libs nothing BEFORE Vatican II matters. It’s that “line in the sand” mentality that seems to be a marker of error to me.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

First, the schism didn’t actually occurred in 1054. The truth is, no one can really put a solid date when the actual break happened.

I have always been curious about this date. It was a gradual break with scholasticism completely severing the theological approach between East and West.

I’d like to say that it wasn’t until the mid 1100’s that we implemented the School of Cardinals for the election of the Pope (10th Lateran Council?), need to check on this thou.

 

[Abu]

Gabriel of 12, #26
Who and what does your “ecumenical” = universal definition include?

It is the definition of the word: Etym. Latin oecumenicus; from Greek oikoumenē, the inhabited world.

The Catholic Church has had 21 Ecumenical Councils which only She can define. As Fr. John A Hardon, S.J., affirms:
“With the first ecumenical council at Nicea in 325, this cooperative activity reached worldwide proportions. The very name “ecumenical council” describes the two elements that have since become associated with collegiality: a council because the bishops meet for united deliberation and decision, and ecumenical because their meeting represents the whole Christian world in union with the see of Peter.”
The Catholic Catechism, Doubleday 1975, p 221].

Since the Apostles the seven major defections from the Catholic Church have been Gnosticism, Manichaeism, Arianism, Nestorianism, Eutychianism, Greek Orthodoxy, and Protestantism.

 

[Nine_Two]

But that’s the rub, isn’t it? By what authority can one state that all the important issues have been settled and that there is no more need for authoritative doctrinal decisions?

I don’t mean to harp, but it seems to me that the EO have adopted that position, but can’t reasonably demonstrate why it is so or on what basis they have reached that conclusion.

It’s important to have clear reasons when line in the sand are drawn, especially since it seems to be such a common feature of infighting in the church. For protestants, nothing after the last line of Scripture has authority, for the SSPX, nothing from Vatican II or later matters, for modern western libs nothing BEFORE Vatican II matters. It’s that “line in the sand” mentality that seems to be a marker of error to me.

It isn’t that we’re drawing a line in the sand and saying nothing matters after this. Holy Tradition goes right up to the present day for us. However the big issues were settled long ago. Arguments over how the Bread and Wine are changed into the Body and Blood, or on whether it is faith or works that is most important, the big arguments that the West has seen, just seems so pointless, and yet because of them you’ve seen huge splits.

That isn’t to say we haven’t had our share of stupid issues. The Nikonian Reforms led to what is possibly the dumbest schism in the history of Christianity, but even then Patriarch Jeremiah gave some great advice (that unfortunately was not heeded), ultimately the reforms don’t matter when it comes to salvation, so we shouldn’t be making a bigger deal out of them than necessary. Yet in the Catholic Church every little thing has an anathema attached to it, and Protestants group themselves by every minor distinction under the sun (post-trib rapture? Ha!)

 

[Abu]

Nine_Two #35
in the Catholic Church every little thing has an anathema attached to it

What a truly bizarre supposition!

Such a selfist notion has produced the Orthodox rejection of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, and the blasé permitted divorce and remarriage, apart from denying the reality of the infallibility of the Pope and His supremacy as factually instituted by Christ – against which they have no reasonable justification.

 

[Nine_Two]

What a truly bizarre supposition!

Such a selfist notion has produced the Orthodox rejection of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, and the blasé permitted divorce and remarriage, apart from denying the reality of the infallibility of the Pope and His supremacy as factually instituted by Christ – against which they have no reasonable justification.

Why don’t you try reading the canons of your churches many councils rather than throwing insults (I’m assuming you were calling me selfish). Immaculate Conception has an athema attached to it. As does denying the infallibility of the Pope and his universal jurisdiction. Little things that have nothing to do with Christ.

I’m not even going to touch on your other accusation, out of respect for other posters here.

 

[Abu]

Nine_Two #37
Immaculate Conception has an athema attached to it. As does denying the infallibility of the Pope and and his universal jurisdiction. Little things that have nothing to do with Christ.

What a puerile rejection of Christ, in contrast to the Saviour’s own clear mandate.

St. Paul rightly referred to the infallibility of Christ’s Church in I Tim., 3, 15: “The Church of the living God, the pillar and the ground of truth.”

It’s so convenient to neglect Christ Himself:
As Jesus had commanded: “Going therefore, teach all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Teaching them to observe whatsoever I have commanded you” (Mt 28:19).

And the promise was fulfilled: I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you." (John 14:15-18) “The Advocate, the holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name, he will teach you everything and remind you of all that I told you.” (John 14:26) “But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming. He will glorify me, because he will take from what is mine and declare it to you. Everything that the Father has is mine; for this reason I told you that he will take from what is mine and declare it to you.” (John 16:13-15)

St. Paul has counseled you as to whom to avoid: “Preach the word. Be urgent in season, out of season; reprove, entreat, rebuke with all patience and teaching. For there will come a time when far from being content with sound teaching, people are avid for the latest novelty and collect themselves a whole series of teachers according to their own tastes.” (2 Tim 4:3).

“That we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness by which they lie in wait to deceive.” (Eph 4:14).

Who would deny St John and St Paul Too?
St. Paul says also, “through the Church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places (Eph 3:10).” The Church teaches even the angels! This is with the authority of Christ!

St John counsels you: “We belong to God, and anyone who knows God listens to us, while anyone who does not belong to God refuses to hear us. This is how we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of deceit.” (1 Jn 4:6 ).

A teaching authority founded by God must be worthy of God – certain in truth, infallible. Jesus gave St Peter the power of binding and loosing, and the Keys of the kingdom of heaven.

Ridiculing the Saviour’s own mandated Magisterium and His Bride, the Church, by neglecting His commands in the Sacred Scriptures, by caricaturing that they “have nothing to do with Christ”, is the height of folly.

 

[Nine_Two]

What a puerile rejection of Christ, in contrast to the Saviour’s own clear mandate.

St. Paul rightly referred to the infallibility of Christ’s Church in I Tim., 3, 15: “The Church of the living God, the pillar and the ground of truth.”

It’s so convenient to neglect Christ Himself:
As Jesus had commanded: “Going therefore, teach all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Teaching them to observe whatsoever I have commanded you” (Mt 28:19).

And the promise was fulfilled: I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you." (John 14:15-18) “The Advocate, the holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name, he will teach you everything and remind you of all that I told you.” (John 14:26) “But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming. He will glorify me, because he will take from what is mine and declare it to you. Everything that the Father has is mine; for this reason I told you that he will take from what is mine and declare it to you.” (John 16:13-15)

St. Paul has counseled you as to whom to avoid: “Preach the word. Be urgent in season, out of season; reprove, entreat, rebuke with all patience and teaching. For there will come a time when far from being content with sound teaching, people are avid for the latest novelty and collect themselves a whole series of teachers according to their own tastes.” (2 Tim 4:3).

“That we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness by which they lie in wait to deceive.” (Eph 4:14).

Who would deny St John and St Paul Too?
St. Paul says also, “through the Church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places (Eph 3:10).” The Church teaches even the angels! This is with the authority of Christ!

St John counsels you: “We belong to God, and anyone who knows God listens to us, while anyone who does not belong to God refuses to hear us. This is how we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of deceit.” (1 Jn 4:6 ).

A teaching authority founded by God must be worthy of God – certain in truth, infallible. Jesus gave St Peter the power of binding and loosing, and the Keys of the kingdom of heaven.

Ridiculing the Saviour’s own mandated Magisterium and His Bride, the Church, by neglecting His commands in the Sacred Scriptures, by caricaturing that they “have nothing to do with Christ”, is the height of folly.

To clarify, you’re saying I’m wrong, and that whether or not the Theotokos was born with original sin is a matter of urgent doctrinal importance, because the Pope says so?

That doesn’t cut it.

 

[Abu]

Picking and choosing what to believe (on the Immaculate Conception, Christ’s conferring of papal infallibility) and how to act (re divorce and remarriage) does not constitute a sincere follower of Christ.

Jesus did not prevaricate nor fantasise in establishing His Church with His authority:
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
“I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." ( Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19)

Sole authority to Peter:
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).

The title “Catholic” (from the Greek katholike meaning “general” or “universal”) was first used by St Ignatius of Antioch in A.D. 107 in his letter to the Smyrneans, “Where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” The Catholic Catechism, Fr John A Hardon, S.J., Doubleday 1975, p 217].

So those who live in a make believe world are the only ones who reject Christ’s Catholic Church for the Christ warned: “if he refuses to hear even the Church let him be like the heathen and a publican.” (Mt 18:17).

Note that the early Church always accepted the Bishop of Rome as head of the Church. In about 80 A.D., the Church at Corinth deposed its lawful leaders. The fourth bishop of Rome, Pope Clement I, was called to settle the matter even though St. John the Apostle was still alive and much closer to Corinth than was Rome. Tradition shows Pope St Clement exercising his primacy in about 96, on a matter of schism in the Church of Corinth. Of the same generation as Saints Peter and Paul and when St John the Apostle was probably still living in Ephesus, Pope Clement wrote as one commanding to the Church of Corinth in Greece: “If any disobey what He (Christ) says through us, let them know that they will be involved in no small offence and danger, but we shall be innocent of this sin.” (I Clem. ad Cor. 59,1) This Is The Faith, Francis J Ripley, Fowler Wright Books, 1971, p 151; 139-141].