P
Pons
Guest
Perhaps Peter’s martyrdom in Rome is pertinent.
- Status
L
Lazerlike42
Guest
I think the answer to this question may be helpful to your understanding in general. Papal infallibility is not thought of as an item of great utility. In other words, its not something that is thought of as being a thing folks would use all the time. It’s understood as a last resort, intended for the sake of settling controversy when no other means can be found, or when an ecumenical council is not possible due to the constraints of time or disaster.
Consider that for a moment. It is easy to conceive of a time wherin some matter would need to be settled in the midst of a great disaster, a disaster preventing a council from gathering. Consider, for example, the case of a third world war. Without trying to conceive of a particular example, is it not possible to imagine that, in the midst of a nuclear or biogenic war, some theological or moral issue may arise which is in need of immediate attention? Or even better: consider the end times, when the man of sin and the antiChrist shall come, deceiving many, and by many accounts plunging the world into the most horrible war in history. In that time, wouldn’t the faithful of the Church need more than ever a sure rock to follow, a certain answer as to whether to follow the teachings of these people, in all the chaos that has come with the onslaught of Satan? Billions of souls could be saved or lost based off of one decision. Without the ability for a Council to meet, what can be done?
God would not leave His children in that situation, and He has not. He has given us the charism of Papal infallibility to guard us against the evil one in such a time.
The definition of the Immaculate Conception and of the Assumption don’t quite fit into that sort of situation, of course. But just because a charism has been used in a way that may not be consistent with it’s intention does not take away from the intention. (Now I have to be careful here. I could be wrong in what I’m saying. These are my thoughts and so far as I know Church teaching permits me to express them at this time.)
After all, look at how some popes have failed to make an infallible declaration: Sixtus V, who died immediately before officially declaring his error-ridden Vulgate to be the official text of Scripture. A few other popes have died at ooportune times as well, if I recall correctly. If that’s the means by which the pope is going to be protected, it certainly oughtn’t to be used at the drop of a hat.
At the Council of Jerusalem, there was no urgent need. Peter had no reason to declare his authority. Everyone was there, and so they gathered and together assembled, with Peter’s teaching finally silencing them and leading them to make an agreement.
L
Lazerlike42
Guest
It’s not just Peter being the leader. It’s the particular ways he is being shown to lead. In other words, do these cases show that he have authority over each of the apostles - jurisdiction, that is? Most at least suggest it, and many early Councils and fathers, including the Eastern Bishop John Chrysostom, profess this to be the case.
It is because it is the successor of Peter’s office as apostle, not as bishop. Remember, the apostles were not bishops. They acted administratively as bishops at times, but they were of a different office as bishops. Irenaeus was not an apostle. Ignatius of Antioch was not an apostle. St. Chrysostom was not an apostle. They were bishops, an office instituted by Christ through the apostles to govern the Church after their deaths. The bishop of Antioch after Peter left took over his oversight of Antioch, but not his office as Apostle. This is why Rome is referred to as “the Apostolic See,” by the Councils and the Fathers. It is the See of the Petrine office of Apostle. It is why Popes issue Apostolic letters, and things like that.
Peace and God bless
A
Algernon
Guest
Lazerlike,
As always your insight is much appreciated.
A
As always your insight is much appreciated.
A
T
Tomster
Guest
The legitimacy of such an addition in the first place, on the authority of a local council, such as the Synod of Aachen in 809 A.D. and several Spanish Councils in the 5th, 6th and 7th centuries may well be questioned. But there can be no doubt concerning the lawfulness since it was approved by the supreme magisterium of the Church. Nor have the Orthodox any reason for saying that such an addition contravenes the decree of the Council of Ephesus forbidding anyone to “compose another faith than that one which was defined by the Holy Fathers who were gathered together with the Holy Ghost at Nicaea.” The Council’s intention was to anathematise any contradictory formula. It had nothing to say against legitimate additions to the Creeds or against clearer statements of the unchanging Faith.
T
Tomster
Guest
It was for his failure to make a definite and unequivocal pronouncement on the subject of the two wills of Christ that Pope Honorius I was condemned. The third Council of Constantinople (680 - 681) condemned him as “following the false doctrines of heretics” and “confirming the impious dogmas of Sergius” of Constantinople, who was the leader of the Monotheletes. But, as is well known, an Ecumenical Council has validity only inasmuch as it is confirmed by the Pope, the head of the Council, and therefore the condemnation of Honorius is to be understood in the sense in which it was approved by Pope Leo II, who wrote as follows: “We anathematise the inventors of this error . . . and also Honorius who did not shed luster upon this apostolic (Roman) Church by the doctrine of apostolic tradition, but allowed this immaculate Church to be stained by a false betrayal.” Hence Honorius was anathematised for a practical rather than dogmatic error, because he failed to condemn a heresy when he should have done so.
For a fuller treatment of this controversial question see Dom Chapman: “The Condemantion of Honorius”
L
Lazerlike42
Guest
Moreover, Council itself read aloud, accepted, and applauded the letter that Pope Agatho had sent to the Emperor, declaring, “This same holy and universal synod, here present, faithfully accepts and welcomes with open hands the report of Agatho, most holy and most blessed pope of elder Rome…”
This letter said, among other things:
- “this Apostolic Church of His * has never turned away from the path of truth in any direction of error…”
- “the Apostolic Church of Christ [Rome]… by the grace of Almighty God, has never erred from the path of the apostolic tradition, nor has she been depraved by yielding to heretical innovations…”
- according to Giovanni Domenico Mansi’s collection of the Councils of the Church, "The heretics have followed some passing expressions imprudently set down by one Pope [Honorius], who made no appeal to papal authority, nor to tradition from St. Peter. Against this I put the repeated, the continuous protest of Pope after Pope, authoritative, grave, deliberate. Their voice was intended to be, and was, the voice of the infallible Roman Church.”
T
Tomster
Guest
Moreover, Council itself read aloud, accepted, and applauded the letter that Pope Agatho had sent to the Emperor, declaring, “This same holy and universal synod, here present, faithfully accepts and welcomes with open hands the report of Agatho, most holy and most blessed pope of elder Rome…”
This letter said, among other things:
It is impossible to hold that the Council had in mind to condemn Honorius for having taught heresy when Council also asserted that the Roman Church had never “erred from the path of the apostolic tradition” or “turned away from the path of truth.” If Honorius had taught heresy, that would be precisely what the Roman Church would have done.*
- “this Apostolic Church of His * has never turned away from the path of truth in any direction of error…”
- “the Apostolic Church of Christ [Rome]… by the grace of Almighty God, has never erred from the path of the apostolic tradition, nor has she been depraved by yielding to heretical innovations…”
- according to Giovanni Domenico Mansi’s collection of the Councils of the Church, "The heretics have followed some passing expressions imprudently set down by one Pope [Honorius], who made no appeal to papal authority, nor to tradition from St. Peter. Against this I put the repeated, the continuous protest of Pope after Pope, authoritative, grave, deliberate. Their voice was intended to be, and was, the voice of the infallible Roman Church.”
Thank you very much.
S
steve_b
Guest
Previously in Acts, it says Paul and Barnabas were running into oposition from the Judaizers in Antioch who wanted gentile converts to keep the Mosaic laws, just like Jewish converts. So it says the 2 went to Jerusalem for a ruling. After much debate, Peter stood up, gave the answer, ending the debate, and James implemented the ruling.
Re: Papal Infallibility, maybe looking at it in reverse will help
To refute papal infallibility two things must be established.
*]That a pope exercising his office of Pastor and Teacher, defined and taught some doctrine to be held by the Universal Church .
*]That the doctrine, thus defined and taught, was found heretical.
In the 2000 year history of the Papacy, no Pope has violated this. It’s GOD of course who does this for the office, it’s certainly not the individual Pope doing this on his own…
F
FCEGM
Guest
Matthew 16:18: “You are rock and on this rock [you] I will build my Church.” What could be clearer? You are (Peter) and on this (Peter) – which has been identified as YOU – I will build my Church.”
"You are rock because My Father has revealed to you Who I am; but it is still you, the one receiving this revelation, upon whom I will build my Church.” There is no separation here between Peter and the revelations he has received. Our Lord did not say “your faith is rock”. There is a deep reason for this: the entire Revelation is Communion of Persons; thus the True Faith will mean a communion with Peter, and not merely an acceptance of Peter’s faith. (Also, Luke 22:31-32:“Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat, but I have prayed that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers.”)
A communion of persons means Love, since Divine Love is a Communion of Three Persons. It is not possible to have Peter’s faith without communion with Peter and be in the Charity or Love of God in Christ. (That is another reason why John’s Gospel after the Resurrection, Our Lord asks if Peter loves Him: there must be a communion of persons, between Peter and Our Lord. That’s what the Revelation is all about.
Now, unfortunately, we have examples of people who have the same faith, yet who are not in communion with one another. It is more than interesting that St. Ignatius of Antioch sees the Roman Church presiding in love. This is tantamount to presiding in communion, and therefore in Eucharistic and sacramental communion.
Now that cannot be just an honor, since to preside in communion is to take the place of Christ visibly in the Eucharist as High Priest of the New and Eternal Covenant in His Blood.
It is not for honor that Peter was chosen, but for the building up of the Church. The honor follows that; just as the honor given to the Blessed Mother follows from the vocation God gave her. Likewise for the Roman Church and her Bishop. There is not honor in the Church without vocation.
It is because of their vocation that bishops and priests have honor and, mutatis mutandi, monks and nuns. To preside in Communion among the Churches of the One Universal Church is indeed an honor, it must therefore be such because of a vocation.
Returning to the point: having the faith of the Apostle Peter is insufficient; one must have communion with him also; having communion with Peter is having communion with Our Lord and His Father, and that is also why Our Lord says, “You are rock and upon you [this Rock, Peter] I will build my Church.” The Roman Church is Peter’s particular Church in a way that no other Church is (Antioch saw him just pass through for awhile); since the same need for communion exists now as in apostolic times, the vocation of Peter’s Church as presiding in communion stays with that Church and, of course, with the bishop there who personifies the local Church. All other Churches would see that bishop as presiding in communion, and that would mean that if the Pope should show up in their Church he would preside there as internal to their Church - which is exactly what happened when the Syrian Pope Constantine went to Constantinople in the early 8th Century.
My spiritual director relates meeting the Melkite Patriarch (shortly after he succeeded the famous Maximos of Vatican II fame) when he came to the seminary my s.d. was attending some 30-odd years ago. He was privileged to escort the Patriarch through the cloister and so spoke with him personally for about 10 minutes in which he explained that though they accepted the Pope’s universal authority to teaching (with infallibility ex cathedra) and to act, they did so out of a motive of love for the unity of the Church and charity towards Rome not to be deprived of the universality that comes from being in communion with the East.
What astonishes me especially is that the Orthodox were so quick to turn over such real primacy in temporal affairs, e.g., to a secular emperor and won’t even consider doing that for the pope! - far better for the pope to rule the Church’s affairs than an emperor, who, if missing, paralyzes the series of local Churches who can’t get their act together. To appeal to the Holy Spirit to do it all eventually looks very much like a denial of the practical social needs of humanity and therefore of the Church, as if Christ was not provident about that and established a defective Church without much ability to manifest unity in coordinate action; unity of spirit and attitude is not enough. Obviously. It is the tendency of the contemplative exaggerated to neglect such practicality.
continued. . .
F
FCEGM
Guest
Further, we see in the patristic period popes acting very sure of themselves in an authoritative mode and making a supreme difference.
In this entire period only two or three incidents can even be surfaced to seemingly contradict this, so that those incidents have the character of exceptions, not the norm (whereas the times each of the other Sees of Apostolic origin are on the wrong side is legion and almost have the character of the norm rather than the exception!). So just from the point of historical reasoning you would have to generalize that in the patristic era the popes are consistent witnesses to orthodoxy with the exception of two or three. (Actually, Liberius and Honorius are the only ones, and Liberius is easily explained.)
So this means that you cannot ignore the testimony the popes or put this one (possible) exception of Honorius above all other facts.
But this case of Honorius can and has been answered – which I don’t do here again. IOW, this orthodox consistence of the Roman Popes itself needs an explanation; that that See alone is consistently on the right side. Reason alone makes one wonder: very good batting-average to say the least!
But when you add to that statistic the historical fact that the Popes constantly and self-consciously identify themselves as the successors to Peter and claim to teach with his authority and no other bishop claims that, and no bishop contradicts the Popes’ assertions about themselves – indeed on more than one occasion they echo that claim, “Peter has spoken through Leo”; they don’t say that about anyone else do they? – then the evidence mounts for a special significance of the pope in the Universal Church in the role of teaching and identifying the Truth.
In this entire period only two or three incidents can even be surfaced to seemingly contradict this, so that those incidents have the character of exceptions, not the norm (whereas the times each of the other Sees of Apostolic origin are on the wrong side is legion and almost have the character of the norm rather than the exception!). So just from the point of historical reasoning you would have to generalize that in the patristic era the popes are consistent witnesses to orthodoxy with the exception of two or three. (Actually, Liberius and Honorius are the only ones, and Liberius is easily explained.)
So this means that you cannot ignore the testimony the popes or put this one (possible) exception of Honorius above all other facts.
But this case of Honorius can and has been answered – which I don’t do here again. IOW, this orthodox consistence of the Roman Popes itself needs an explanation; that that See alone is consistently on the right side. Reason alone makes one wonder: very good batting-average to say the least!
But when you add to that statistic the historical fact that the Popes constantly and self-consciously identify themselves as the successors to Peter and claim to teach with his authority and no other bishop claims that, and no bishop contradicts the Popes’ assertions about themselves – indeed on more than one occasion they echo that claim, “Peter has spoken through Leo”; they don’t say that about anyone else do they? – then the evidence mounts for a special significance of the pope in the Universal Church in the role of teaching and identifying the Truth.
A
Algernon
Guest
Sorry I can’t get to everyone’s comments (unfortunately, this is a work weekend 
), but I would like to comment on this one:
A
), but I would like to comment on this one:We have already agreed that Honorius wasn’t writing ex cathedra when he went along with the Monothelites, so he therefore couldn’t have been leading the Roman Church into error. But no one is claiming that the Council anathematized the Roman Church, just the leader of it.
A
S
steve_b
Guest
I don’t know. I personally have never used that approach.If a point is made that the others who got to the tomb first waited for Peter, so he could enter first, I think a case can be made THERE, for the others showing respect to the leader of the apostles.
I hope I didn’t give you the impression that I thought you were.
L
Lazerlike42
Guest
The issue of papal infallibility and ex cathedra teachings isn’t the issue here. The issue is whether or not Honorius was condemned for having taught heresy, regardless of the weight of his teaching.Sorry I can’t get to everyone’s comments (unfortunately, this is a work weekend
We have already agreed that Honorius wasn’t writing ex cathedra when he went along with the Monothelites, so he therefore couldn’t have been leading the Roman Church into error. But no one is claiming that the Council anathematized the Roman Church, just the leader of it.
A
The claim that is being made against the papacy here is essentially that Honorius was condemned for teaching heresy by the Third Council of Constantinople. This is at issue because Mr. Madrid’s book says he was not condemned for teaching heresy, and you listed it as an example of error in the book.
It’s an issue in a secondary way because Eastern Orthodox (and Protestant) claims hold that Honorius taught heresy and was condemned for it, and this in some way is injurious to the Catholic claim of universal papal jurisdiction. I am not sure exactly how it is supposed to have any impact on universal jurisdiction, because I really don’t see any connection, but nevertheless this is the claim.
Now if Honorius had in fact taught heresy, whether definitively or nor, then that would have been a stain on the Roman Church’s doctrinal purity. It would have been contrary to all of the things Pope Agatho wrote about the Roman Church’s having been undefiled for it would have been defiled by the heretical teaching of her primary teacher.
Add to that Agatho’s specific claim that the monotheletism had been “imprudently set down” by Honorius, and his distinction between this and the other statements of popes, which he asserted to be the voice of the Roman Church.
(Also note Agatho’s claim that the other popes had spoken with the “voice of the infallible Roman Church.” Unless one wants to contend that the Patriarchate of Rome was infallible apart from the rest of the Churches, then that would have to refer to the pope.)
Now more importantly for the sake of the broader discussion, the letter of Agatho contained several assertions of the jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, which the Council accepted, approved of, and applauded.
Peace and God bless
A
Algernon
Guest
The point of my even bringing this up in the first place was to question Madrid’s claim that Honorius’ crime was not holding the heretical belief; his crime was simply not stanching the heretical teaching:
(this is from my first post)
Pg. 160 “‘Pope Honorius, therefore, was never condemned for heresy by the supreme Church authority, but only for negligence [in] allowing a heresy to spread and grow, when he should have denounced it.’” (quoting W. Carroll, The History of Christendom, vol 2, pg. 254)
Pg. 161 “Pope Honorius was not condemned as a Monothelite. Rather, as we have seen, he was anathematized for allowing the heretical Sergius to put orthodox doctrine alongside heretical.”
The text of the Council clearly states that Honorius was
anathemetized, not because he failed to condemn Monothelitism, but because he endorsed it: “And with these we define that there shall be expelled from the holy Church of God and anathematized Honorius who was some time Pope of Old Rome, because of what we found written by him to Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines.” (Sixth Ecumenical Council: Constantinople III, 680-681; Session XIII)
Another question I posed someplace else was: if the Church of the late 7th century had today’s understanding of the papacy, would they have dared to condemn a pope for something he wrote privately? It’s difficult to imagine.
A
L
Lazerlike42
Guest
The problem here is that you, or I, or anyone is interpreting the Council. Ultimately, we have to rely on somebody’s interpretation of what the Council said. Now we have to make sure that that interpretation agrees with all of the evidence. Protestants look to Paul who says “a man is justified by faith apart from works of the law,” and declare a man is saved by faith alone. This interpretation is inconsistent with James’ declaration that man is “justified… not by faith alone,” and so the interpretation is invalid.
As for this Council, we have to figure out what it means that Honorius “followed [Sergius’] views and confirmed his false doctrines.” There are three major questions there. What does it mean to follow a view? I can think of several possibilities. What does it mean to confirm a doctrine? Finally, why did the council seperate following a view from confirming a doctrine. Obviously, there is some difference there, and it’s important.
For example, they said Honorius confirmed Sergius’ doctrines. I think there’s no question he did this. Sergius’ understood Honorius’ reply to confirm that he was able to maintain his view. But does it mean tht Honorius intentionally confirmed the doctrine? Or does it mean, as Pope John IV and Maximus the Confessor, both citing the man who penned the letter, that Honorius imprudently chose his words so as to in fact give Sergius confirmation, but unintentionally? Does it mean that Honorius actually taught Sergius’ view, or that he merely gave approval for Sergius to use his praseology?
I can think of other questions as well, and that would not deal with the issue of Honorius having “followed” views, nor does it answer the very large question of what the difference is between the two.
We have to interpret what all of this means, even if we don’t realize it. Even if we just read it and take it at the first thing that occurs to us - at face value, as it were - we’ve made an interpretation. But we’re reading a vast amount of things into it, including our modern perception of language. What did the Council intend to do?
In this case, we have the tremendous gift of having information that helps us to understand the Council’s thinking. The Council approved, accepted, and applauded the letter of Pope Agatho, in which he declared that the Roman Church had never been defiled or taught heresy. Now whatever our interpretatin of the Council, it simply can’t be that Honorius was condemned for havng taught heresy, because the Council had already agreed with Agatho that the Roman Church had never taught heresy. This would be consistent with the Council seperating Honorius’ name from those who taught the heresy. Why else write it that way? If we read the Council otherwise, then we’re simply not being consistent with the facts.
We also have Leo’s confirmation of the Council, a confirmation which was not protested, in which he said, "We anathematize the inventors of the new error, that is, Theodore, Sergius,…and also Honorius, who did not attempt to sanctify this Apostolic Church with the teaching of Apostolic tradition, but by profane treachery permitted its purity to be polluted." Some manuscripts end with “attempted to pollute its purity,” which would be a bit more powerful, yet still does not declare that he had in fact succeeded in doing so, that is, actually taught error.
Nevertheless, we can understand Leo’s meaning by his letter to Spanish bishops, which read, “With Honorius, who did not, as became the Apostolic authority, extinguish the flame of heretical teaching in its first beginning, but fostered it by his negligence,” and the Visiogothic king Erwig, which read, “…and with them Honorius, who allowed the unspotted rule of Apostolic tradition, which he received from his predecessors, to be tarnished.” It is clear that Honorius was condemned not as a heretic, but for negligently having used imprecise language and permitting heresy to spread.
Now some have even gone so far to argue that by Leo’s confirmation, he was in fact *modifying *the Council’s anathema in favor of his own wording. I won’t suggest this beyond being a possibility, but as we have seen from other Councils and from the Patriarch of Constantinople, the Pope has every right to do that and in fact the Council is invalid apart from his confirmation.
I think, Algernon, that there is a gret deal of evidence that Honorius was not condemned for any such thing as teaching heresy. It simply doesn’t fit all the facts.
Peace and God bless!
J
john654
Guest
Algernon,
I was wondering what you thought the meaning of the word “whatever” is, when taken in the context of Matthew 16:19?
John
I was wondering what you thought the meaning of the word “whatever” is, when taken in the context of Matthew 16:19?
John
D
Dominicanis
Guest
If I have missed it, I apologize, but from where are you beginning on your spiritual search for Christ?
How does one get around the change of Simon’s name to Peter in Matthew 16:17-19, where Peter is called by Christ Himself the Rock upon which His Church will be built? The Greek used a singular pronoun for “you” in that passage and we all know the Petra/Petros argument is bogus in light of Christ speaking in Aramaic, where the word “kepha” is used in both places. That for me has always demonstrated that Peter and his successors were appointed by Christ in perpetuity to form the foundation and safeguard the doctrine of the Christian Church. That has formed the basis for my acceptance that the pope’s office is protected from formally teaching error binding on all Christians. (Which is why Honorius and Liberius, and even John XXII, do not hold up as examples of papal fallibility.)
I am puzzled by your entire line for this thread. In reading your list of materials from the book, it seems at first pass that you didn’t read this book as part of a conversion process but for proof-texts against your presuppositions that papal infallibility et. al. simply can’t be true. Your tone is one with which I’m familiar, having dealt with those who refuse to accept Rome’s authority from both sides of the spectrum, liberal and conservative. Yes, you respect the Church and her members, but you don’t or won’t respect her authority, which would be like my children saying they respect me even as they sometimes refuse to obey me.
In the end, one cannot pick and choose which doctrines he will or won’t accept from Christ and His Church. Catholic does not mean just universal, it also means according to the whole. To pick and choose what to embrace or eschew is not to be a fully Christian believer. Either Christ made specific promises to Peter that we accept as real or He didn’t and Scripture is flawed, an unthinkable premise, since it’s from God by the authority of His Church.
Papal infallibility doesn’t glorify the pope. It glorifies God, Who gave it to His Church and the world to safeguard His truth.
The Eastern Orthodox have a fine and venerable tradition and valid sacraments. They also have not had an ecumenical council since the schism, and their lack of cohesion not only with Rome but with each other indicates that they lack at least one of the marks of Christ’s Church (one, holy, catholic and apostolic). And since many of them are very ethnic and limited in scope and influence in gaining conversions, it may be questionable that they are also universal(catholic).
Ask the Holy Spirit to help you. Rely not on the words of men but on God’s help. If you are truly seeking conversion to the fullness of Christ’s truth, the Spirit will help you. I’ll pray for you on your search.
Yours in Christ,
Dominicanis
How does one get around the change of Simon’s name to Peter in Matthew 16:17-19, where Peter is called by Christ Himself the Rock upon which His Church will be built? The Greek used a singular pronoun for “you” in that passage and we all know the Petra/Petros argument is bogus in light of Christ speaking in Aramaic, where the word “kepha” is used in both places. That for me has always demonstrated that Peter and his successors were appointed by Christ in perpetuity to form the foundation and safeguard the doctrine of the Christian Church. That has formed the basis for my acceptance that the pope’s office is protected from formally teaching error binding on all Christians. (Which is why Honorius and Liberius, and even John XXII, do not hold up as examples of papal fallibility.)
I am puzzled by your entire line for this thread. In reading your list of materials from the book, it seems at first pass that you didn’t read this book as part of a conversion process but for proof-texts against your presuppositions that papal infallibility et. al. simply can’t be true. Your tone is one with which I’m familiar, having dealt with those who refuse to accept Rome’s authority from both sides of the spectrum, liberal and conservative. Yes, you respect the Church and her members, but you don’t or won’t respect her authority, which would be like my children saying they respect me even as they sometimes refuse to obey me.
In the end, one cannot pick and choose which doctrines he will or won’t accept from Christ and His Church. Catholic does not mean just universal, it also means according to the whole. To pick and choose what to embrace or eschew is not to be a fully Christian believer. Either Christ made specific promises to Peter that we accept as real or He didn’t and Scripture is flawed, an unthinkable premise, since it’s from God by the authority of His Church.
Papal infallibility doesn’t glorify the pope. It glorifies God, Who gave it to His Church and the world to safeguard His truth.
The Eastern Orthodox have a fine and venerable tradition and valid sacraments. They also have not had an ecumenical council since the schism, and their lack of cohesion not only with Rome but with each other indicates that they lack at least one of the marks of Christ’s Church (one, holy, catholic and apostolic). And since many of them are very ethnic and limited in scope and influence in gaining conversions, it may be questionable that they are also universal(catholic).
Ask the Holy Spirit to help you. Rely not on the words of men but on God’s help. If you are truly seeking conversion to the fullness of Christ’s truth, the Spirit will help you. I’ll pray for you on your search.
Yours in Christ,
Dominicanis
D
Dominicanis
Guest
Here is more of the passage from Eusebius: But the bishops of Asia, led by Polycrates, decided to hold to the old custom handed down to them. He himself, in a letter which he addressed to Victor and the church of Rome, set forth in the following words the tradition which had come down to him…
“Among these are Philip, one of the twelve apostles, who fell asleep in Hierapolis; and his two aged virgin daughters, and another daughter, who lived in the Holy Spirit and now rests at Ephesus; and, moreover, John, who was both a witness and a teacher, who reclined upon the bosom of the Lord, and, being a priest, wore the sacerdotal plate. He fell asleep at Ephesus. And Polycarp in Smyrna, who was a bishop and martyr; and Thraseas, bishop and martyr from Eumenia, who fell asleep in Smyrna. Why need I mention the bishop and martyr Sagaris who fell asleep in Laodicea, or the blessed Papirius, or Melito, the Eunuch who lived altogether in the Holy Spirit, and who lies in Sardis, awaiting the episcopate from heaven, when he shall rise from the dead? All these observed the fourteenth day of the passover according to the Gospel, deviating in no respect, but following the rule of faith…
For those greater than I have said ‘We ought to obey God rather than man’.” He then writes of all the bishops who were present with him and thought as he did…Thereupon Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the common unity the parishes of all Asia, with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox; and he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicate. But this did not please all the bishops. And they besought him to consider the things of peace, and of neighborly unity and love. Words of theirs are extant, sharply rebuking Victor. Among them was Irenaeus, who, sending letters in the name of the brethren in Gaul over whom he presided, maintained that the mystery of the resurrection of the Lord should be observed only on the Lord’s day. He fittingly admonishes Victor that he should not cut off whole churches of God which observed the tradition of an ancient custom.
Pope Victor’s authority is not being questioned, but his heavy-handed use of it. The fact that he had issued such an edict and it was taken so seriously by the other bishops indicated that the bishop of Rome had authority in matters of the common unity of Christians. They besought him and rebuked him, even sharply, but they did not question his right to exert authority, only to exert it in such a way as he chose in what was deemed an unduly harsh way. There are, in fact, no recorded writings that claim the bishop of Rome did not have authority; what has been recorded is an incident where the use of the authority is questioned, but the authority itself is treated as existing and not an innovation, which the ECF were very quick to identify as such and remove.
If he had no such authority, Victor would have been removed from office or just simply ignored, not answered, besought or sharply rebuked.
Yours in Christ,
Dominicanis
S
steve_b
Guest
May I suggest everyone read these 5 posts. We should also consider IMO, if the case against Honorius was going to sink the doctrine of papal infallibility, (the Church certainly didn’t forget this case) then the doctrine would have never even been proposed.
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3367748&postcount=73
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3367755&postcount=74
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3367761&postcount=75
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3367763&postcount=76
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3367841&postcount=77
- Status