Pope Fiction

[Mickey]

St Augustine
In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: ‘On him as on a rock the Church was built’…But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,’ that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received ‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven.’ For, ‘Thou art Peter’ and not ‘Thou art the rock’ was said to him. But ‘the rock was Christ,’ in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter. But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable (The Fathers of the Church (Washington D.C., Catholic University, 1968), Saint Augustine, The Retractations Chapter 20.1).

St Ambrose
He, then, who before was silent, to teach us that we ought not to repeat the words of the impious, this one, I say, when he heard, ‘But who do you say I am,’ immediately, not unmindful of his station, exercised his primacy, that is, the primacy of confession, not of honor; the primacy of belief, not of rank. This, then, is Peter, who has replied for the rest of the Apostles; rather, before the rest of men. And so he is called the foundation, because he knows how to preserve not only his own but the common foundation…Faith, then, is the foundation of the Church, for it was not said of Peter’s flesh, but of his faith, that ‘the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.’ But his confession of faith conquered hell. And this confession did not shut out one heresy, for, since the Church like a good ship is often buffeted by many waves, the foundation of the Church should prevail against all heresies (The Fathers of the Church (Washington D.C., Catholic University, 1963), Saint Ambrose, Theological and Dogmatic Works, The Sacrament of the Incarnation of Our Lord IV.32-V.34, pp. 230-231).

 

[angelusm]

If you become Orthodox you will obey somebody else instead of the pope. Why do you think this person is the proper one, why do you think Jesus wants you to obey this person? You’ve read a book against papacy, now you should read a book against Orthodox Churches and then make a decision.
Orthodox reject the existence of purgatory. That’s a big mistake. You should think about this issue.
And the last thing - miracles. In the CC there is Fatima, Guadalupe, Lourdes, padre Pio, Faustina, etc. God is talking to His Church, He’s not talking to Orthodox Churches like that, as it seems, because they are not in unity with Peter.

 

[Mickey]

If you become Orthodox you will obey somebody else instead of the pope.

You will obey all bishops (if they are teaching truth). Just like the early Church.

Orthodox reject the existence of purgatory.

And rightly so. There is no such thing.

And the last thing - miracles.

The miracles of Holy Orthodoxy are countless.

 

[Pons]

Wrong. The majority of the Fathers interpreted that verse as St Peter’s confession.

…which doesn’t preclude at least some of them interpreting it as the man St. Peter as well, as others will have told you… Catholics can have it both ways.

You will obey all bishops (if they are teaching truth). Just like the early Church.

We already do this, but with the bishop of Rome included.

 

[Mickey]

which doesn’t preclude at least some of them interpreting it as the man St. Peter as well, as others will have told you… Catholics can have it both ways.

Ah, but Catholics go one step further and claim that the Pope is the infallible supreme ruler of the Universal Church. This was unknown to the Fathers.

We already do this, but with the bishop of Rome included.

Correction. The bishop of Rome was defined as the supreme infalllible pontiff in 1870.

 

[Lazerlike42]

Wrong. The majority of the Fathers interpreted that verse as St Peter’s confession. This was posted many times on the Eastern forum.

Even if this is so, it’s irrelevant. St. John Chrysostom is an eastern example, and if I’m not mistaken Augustine a western one, of the fact that the interpretationg that Peter’s confession is the rock does not exclude the interpretation that Peter himself is the rock.

It’s the same with the Eucharist. Several fathers, including Augustine, taught that it is a symbol of Christ’s body. That doesn’t mean they didn’t also believe it really is Christ’s body.

You quoted a famous passage in which Augustine says that the rock is Christ, but you left out the words that immediately precede those in which he says that he has also taught the Church was built upon Peter himself. This is my point exactly: the fathers often held that both interpretations were possible. To quote half of a paragraph and leave off the other half because it doesn’t support your argument is really quite dishonest, if done intentionally. As Catholics, we recognize that the fathers taught both of these things.

What matters even more than this, however, is the clear and unambiguous evidence that the early Church treated the pope as though he had jurisdiction over them all. I’ve cited just a few examples of this below. Even if we could find one father who denies that Peter is the rock (something that not a single father did, by the way), that would still simply be one father in contradiction to the fact of the practice of the early Church, much like Cyprian’s teaching that the Sacrament of Penance was only valid once. A person can probably find a father for just about any opinion he wants to assert. What matters is how the universal Church viewed the issue as a general consensus, both in teaching and in action.

Peace and God bless

 

[Lazerlike42]

Ah, but Catholics go one step further and claim that the Pope is the infallible supreme ruler of the Universal Church. This was unknown to the Fathers.
Correction. The bishop of Rome was defined as the supreme infalllible pontiff in 1870.

As I have shown over and over and over again in this thread, the early Church - including the Eastern Churches - recognized the pope as having universal authority, and Pope Agatho claimed infallibility and was not only not contradicted but applauded by the third Council of Constantinople!

 

[cascherman]

Yes, this is exactly what I’ve been saying. But *no where *do I see any indication–not even a hint–of papal infallibility or universal jurisdiction.

If they understood it that way, would there be any ambiguity? No.

Well, you sound pretty sure, but I’m not so sure your speculation can actually be factually applied to this circumstance. Would there be ambiguity? Maybe, maybe not, I don’t know how you would know. If it were not questioned then, unlike it is now, that the shepherd of the flock is actually meant to be correct in his teaching, then Yes, they would understand that person as the highest authority and thus not question his decision.

People (non-Catholics and Orthodox) get so worked up about infallibility, but they do not realize that they have their own doctrines that are not questioned in the slightest. If I said to you: “Is (example doctrine… say the Trinity) absolutely correct?” would you say “Maybe, maybe not, we don’t know for sure.” or would you say “Yes, it is true”. I think you would choose the latter. The only difference is, which is also our distinguishing factor among religions, is we have a visible, elected, singular leader that is the successor of the man charged with the keys of the kingdom and our shepherd. An easy person to target and pick on. Where as if you wanted to attack a Baptist’s doctrine which is held as unquestionably correct, there would be no one person you could pursue, you would have to target the whole group, where as someone would call you a bigot.

Wrong. The majority of the Fathers interpreted that verse as St Peter’s confession. This was posted many times on the Eastern forum.

I have left only two of the ‘eastern’ fathers of the Church that Algernon quoted saying the confession was the rock without a similar quote stating Peter is the rock.

That leaves John of Damascus and Cyril of Alexandria of that group of quotes as the only ones not with a quote (that I have found) stating Peter was the rock. That is hardly the majority. The others had quotes saying the rock is both, separate of course, otherwise you wouldn’t be able to quote them showing their disdain for the papacy.

I think you will find there is multiple theologies or interpretations on this verse. I think many may have attributed the rock to all three: the confession, Peter’s faith, and Peter himself. Or maybe two, or maybe just one. But, from the quotes supplied I can find only two people who attributed the rock to his confession only, and again, that is hardly a majority.

 

[holdencaulfield]

Now holfencaulfield is telling me that it’s because it developed. If that’s the case, then why bother even to debate the meaning of Matthew 16 at all?

Did papal infallibility “develop” or was it understood from the beginning. Is there a consensus even among modern Roman Catholics???

A

Because our faith is meant to develop over time, basic doctrines and dogmas have never changed, however things do change, and don’t try to state that Eastern Orthodox Church has never changed, because it has.

 

[holdencaulfield]

If you become Orthodox you will obey somebody else instead of the pope. Why do you think this person is the proper one, why do you think Jesus wants you to obey this person? You’ve read a book against papacy, now you should read a book against Orthodox Churches and then make a decision.
Orthodox reject the existence of purgatory. That’s a big mistake. You should think about this issue.
And the last thing - miracles. In the CC there is Fatima, Guadalupe, Lourdes, padre Pio, Faustina, etc. God is talking to His Church, He’s not talking to Orthodox Churches like that, as it seems, because they are not in unity with Peter.

Yes, although the Pope did not have the authority that he does now, the formal consensus by the Early Church Fathers, was that the Bishop of Rome is the head of the Church on Earth, and has all authority over the Church. When one stops following the Bishop of Rome, they stop following the Church. This was exceedingly clear.

 

[holdencaulfield]

You will obey all bishops (if they are teaching truth). Just like the early Church.

However the Early Church did follow the Bishops, just like the Catholic Church continues to do. The Bishop of Rome was the leader of the other Bishops and the authority.

And rightly so. There is no such thing.

Perhaps you need to read up because the Orthodox Church does believe in Purgatory, they just have no name for it.

The miracles of Holy Orthodoxy are countless.

Are they?

 

[holdencaulfield]

Ah, but Catholics go one step further and claim that the Pope is the infallible supreme ruler of the Universal Church. This was unknown to the Fathers.
Correction.

I think you need to see what Papal Infallibility is and isn’t. Once you understand it, you will see that the Bishop of Rome, has always had this.

The bishop of Rome was defined as the supreme infalllible pontiff in 1870.

Again, do some research, the Church believed this long before 1870

 

[theistgal]

Because St Peter’s confession was 'Rock". And St Peter occupied a primary place among the Apostles–but he was not the supreme ruler over them. If you confess Jesus Christ to be the Messiah, the Son of the living God, you too can be like St Peter.

Doesn’t “primary” usually mean “first”?

 

[cascherman]

Over the centuries the rebellion from the true Church of Christ has multiplied. Never before has the Papacy been questioned as much as it is at this time. It is even called the antichrist by some! If the papacy and the Church did not stand up for the role of the Pope, the seat of Peter and the Catholic Church itself would not be taken seriously and would be swallowed by the self-interpreting masses, never to be seen again.

It has only done what it had to do in a world where any interpretation of the Bible is supposedly as good as the next. Infallibility was not defined to spite the Orthodox or Protestants. It was defined so that the people of the Church can know on what mountain to look for that visible bright light. With so many people and groups erecting their own “lighthouses”, it confuses any Catholic as to what light they should seek after. With the definition of infallibility, the Catholic Church has erected the ultimate light that no other light can detract or distract from. Catholics know where to seek their truth in the Pope and his fellow leaders.

As Octatus wrote about the Bishop of Rome:

You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head—that is why he is also called Cephas ‘Rock’]—of all the apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all" (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [A.D. 367])

And that formula has kept the Catholic Church united for 2,000 years and that is why I believe in the infallibility of my Pope and my Church.

 

[holdencaulfield]

As Octatus wrote about the Bishop of Rome:

That’s a good quote, however who is that person, I don’t believe I have heard of him, I did a google search and didn’t find anything.

 

[Swan]

People (non-Catholics and Orthodox) get so worked up about infallibility, but they do not realize that they have their own doctrines that are not questioned in the slightest. If I said to you: “Is (example doctrine… say the Trinity) absolutely correct?” would you say “Maybe, maybe not, we don’t know for sure.” or would you say “Yes, it is true”. I think you would choose the latter. The only difference is, which is also our distinguishing factor among religions, is we have a visible, elected, singular leader that is the successor of the man charged with the keys of the kingdom and our shepherd. An easy person to target and pick on. Where as if you wanted to attack a Baptist’s doctrine which is held as unquestionably correct, there would be no one person you could pursue, you would have to target the whole group, where as someone would call you a bigot.

I have to disagree with you on this. I was raised Baptist and have several Baptist ministers in my family. Baptists are not “required” to believe everything the demoniation teaches. I know a lot of Baptists who disagree on some serious issues but no one tells them to leave the church because the church can’t be wrong. They might not be real fond of you from a personal point of view … Of course, if you want to be a minister it is a bit different. I have an uncle who has been divorced a remarried several times and the Baptists wouldn’t ordain him - so he’s a Methodist. Baptists say “we don’t believe that’s right” but they don’t claim infallibility.

 

[Mickey]

Augustine a western one, of the fact that the interpretationg that Peter’s confession is the rock does not exclude the interpretation that Peter himself is the rock.

At the end of his life, Augustine wrote his Retractations where he corrects statements in his earlier writings which he says were erroneous. One of these had to do with the interpretation of the rock in Matthew 16.

It’s the same with the Eucharist.

We are not discussing the Eucharist.

What matters even more than this, however, is the clear and unambiguous evidence that the early Church treated the pope as though he had jurisdiction over them all.

It is never disputed, my friend, that the Pope of Rome always held a position of respect and honor. The point being made here, is that the early Church never had this modern idea of the papacy as a supreme infallible ruler of the universal Church–an innovation that was championed by the Ultramontanists and forced on the Church and dogmatized by Pius IX in 1870.

What matters is how the universal Church viewed the issue as a general consensus, both in teaching and in action.

An honest look at Church history will reveal that supreme infallibility is an innovation of the post-schism Latin Church.

Slava Isusu Christu!

 

[Mickey]

As I have shown over and over and over again in this thread, the early Church - including the Eastern Churches - recognized the pope as having universal authority, and Pope Agatho claimed infallibility and was not only not contradicted but applauded by the third Council of Constantinople!

With all due respect, you have shown nothing of the sort. Supreme papal infallibility was not a known concept in the early Church.

 

[Mickey]

However the Early Church did follow the Bishops

Yes–the equality of all bishops–just as Holy Orthodoxy continues to hold.

the Orthodox Church does believe in Purgatory

They do not. Perhaps you should read up. Start a purgatory thread if you wish.

Are they?

Yes.

 

[Mickey]

I think you need to see what Papal Infallibility is and isn’t. Once you understand it, you will see that the Bishop of Rome, has always had this.

I know what it is. I studied it for years.

Again, do some research, the Church believed this long before 1870

Agreed. The Ultramontanists attempted to push this dogma through at the Council of Constance and the Council of Basel–but it was rejected. However, the undivided Church did not know of this odd dogma.