Pope Fiction

[Isa_Almisry]

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:

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.

The name is Optatus.

And he lists the wrong Popes.

As for united, you imploded in the Reformation.

And read up on the Great Western Schism, you may not like what you find.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Mickey, with all due respect, you haven’t even come close to attempting to address the evidence I presented. In fact, again with all due respect, from your response, one might conclude that you didn’t even read what I had to say.

For example, I quoted Agatho specifically asserting that the Roman Church was “infallible,” and yet you said he only asserted honor and respect. “Infallible” does not mean honor and respect; it means ‘infallible.’

Then you have the problem that one of those “infallible” popes was Honorius, whom Agatho, Leo II and the Council anathematized.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

He identified it as both. Here is just one example:

You stated that to identify the rock as his confession would violate all the rules of Greek grammar, etc. You’re contradicting yourself.

 

[Lazerlike42]

Then you have the problem that one of those “infallible” popes was Honorius, whom Agatho, Leo II and the Council anathematized.

The Church at the time of Agatho recognized and understood the difference between an infallible statement from the pope and one which was not. By the standards of Vatican I, Honorius’ letter was not infallible, and Agatho shows that by the standards understood in the time of Honorius his letter was not understood to be infallible, though infallibility was recognized:

“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.”

The Council approved, accepted, and applauded Agatho’s letter. He, and they, both acknowledged the infallibility of the Roman Church and the fact that Honorius statement did not meet this standard.

Peace and God bless

 

[Lazerlike42]

You stated that to identify the rock as his confession would violate all the rules of Greek grammar, etc. You’re contradicting yourself.

Please read what I write more carefully.

I said that to translate the passage as the individual in Mickey’s quotation did would be to violate the rules of Greek grammar. I did not say that it was not possible to make an interpretation that Peter’s confession was the rock.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

St. John Chrysostom interpreted Matthew 16:18 in different ways. He allowed for more than one interpretation, just as did many fathers regarding the Eucharist. This does not mean that he rejected Peter’s being the Rock, any more than other fathers rejected the Eucharistic presence of Christ when they presented symbolic interpretations.

So far as I know of, no Eastern church recognizes any more than 27 canons of Chalcedon for 600 years following Pope Leo’s rejection of it.

Yes, that claim keeps on being repeated, but no explanation how the Church continued to act on it.

In any case, the fact is that Anatolius here asserts that the Council is reserved to the confirmation of Leo’s authority. Whatever place Anatolius occupied, this is what he said.

Anatolius was no more the Church than Leo was, no matter what he said.

Sozomen says that the bishop of Rome claimed its existence; Socrates simply asserts it as fact.

The site is up again. Yes, Socrates, was evidently a Novatian btw, so you might ask what he meant by Rome.

In any case, even if it merely were that the pope claimed of it, why on earth would there be no protest against so sweeping and powerful a claim if it was not regarded as true? Would not all of the bishops of the world, especially the Patriarchs of the Eastern Churches, have left so great a condemnation of this assertion that it would be inarguablly false?

You mean like the whole Church did Pope Victor? The point had been made, they understood primacy in its correct context, and they went on with life.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

You’d have to prove these claims. Every source I can find asserts that it was a Byzantine city.

As the term “Byzantine” was not invented until the “Enlightenment,” no city of the period we are discussing was “Byzantine.”

Furthermore, he excommunicated other Eastern bishops as well.

As whom?

The point is that the claims were made at such an early time in history.

And corrected.

And as such, Gregory the Great eventually approved the Council. Even Photius himself claimed that Pope Damasus approved of the Council.

Rome disuptes the latter contention. As for the former, it is well that Gregory caught up with the rest of the Church.

I’m uncertain as to the relevance of this.

He’s complaining that Ephesus didn’t follow a rule that he later after Chalcedon denied existed.

 

[Lazerlike42]

Yes, that claim keeps on being repeated, but no explanation how the Church continued to act on it.

You’re going to have to provide evidence for this, as a mere claim does not suffice.

Anatolius was no more the Church than Leo was, no matter what he said.

The point is that at the time of Chalcedon, the archbishop of Constantinople - the person who would be most benefited bycanon 28 - asserted that it must be approved by Leo’s authority. In other words, in the 450s, the belief existed that an ecumenical council must be approved by the pope, and so any claims that such a belief never existed until later is contrary to the witness of history.

You mean like the whole Church did Pope Victor? The point had been made, they understood primacy in its correct context, and they went on with life.

If you’re referring to Victor’s stance on the date of Easter, it is really not relevant. Many protested against Victor’s assertions, but most recognized his authority to make them. In fact, when he requested that local councils meet to decide in favor of his stance on the date, not only did councils convene all over the place, but most came down on the side of Victor’s stance.

As regards Gregory, he was making a far greater and more important claim, and yet there was no protest against it. Even if the point were to be conceded on Victor, it would merely mean that as early as the 500s there was a consensus that Gregory’s claims were true.

 

[Lazerlike42]

As the term “Byzantine” was not invented until the “Enlightenment,” no city of the period we are discussing was “Byzantine.”

I am referring to the claim that Prima Justiniana was in the Patriarchate of Rome.

As whom?

John, the bishop of Larissa for one.

And corrected.

By whom? Any later claim would, apart from very convincing evidence to the contrary, constitute merely an attempt to deny a traditional belief of the Church, in the same way that the heresies of Luther and Calvin, though coming later, were not corrections on truth, but abominations of it. This was the Patriarch of Constantinople here making this assertion, against such a canon as would benefit him. If it is so that the doctrine of universal jurisdiction was foreign to the early Church why did so prominent a bishop profess it?

Rome disuptes the latter contention. As for the former, it is well that Gregory caught up with the rest of the Church.

The point is the contention was made. It is easy to dismiss a fellow like Anatolius as one lone voice that was corrected, but when we start to pile voice after voice, it becomes much harder to do this.

Furthermore, I have read that even amongst the East Constantinople’s claim to being an ecumenical council dates to Chalcedon.

He’s complaining that Ephesus didn’t follow a rule that he later after Chalcedon denied existed.

This really doesn’t seem relevant. In what way is this an argument against the papacy?

 

[holdencaulfield]

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

I will say it again, research what and what is not Papal Infallibility. Here is a quote, by a well known Church Father on this subject.

Pope St. Leo I

“Our Lord Jesus Christ . . . established the worship belonging to the divine religion. . . . But the Lord desired that the sacrament of this gift should pertain to all the apostles in such a way that it might be found principally in the most blessed Peter, the highest of all the apostles. And he wanted his gifts to flow into the entire body from Peter himself, as if from the head, in such a way that anyone who had dared to separate himself from the solidarity of Peter would realize that he was himself no longer a sharer in the divine mystery. . . . [You, my brothers], must realize with us, of course, that the Apostolic See—out of reverence for it, I mean—has on countless occasions been reported to in consultation by bishops even of your own province [Vienne]. And through the appeal of various cases to this see, decisions already made have been either revoked or confirmed, as dictated by long-standing custom” (Letters 10:2–3 [A.D. 445])

 

[holdencaulfield]

The ECF did not recognize a supreme pontiff.

I will post two quotes, one from a Western Church Father, and the other from an Eastern Church Father.

Pope St. Damasus

“Likewise it is decreed . . . that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it” (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).

St. Cyril of Alexandria

“They (the Apostles) strove to learn through one, that preeminent one, Peter.” (Cyril, Ib. 1. ix. p. 736).

 

[holdencaulfield]

only to stay the same.

No it has not, originally you followed the Bishop of Rome, you do not anymore, you originally had the Pentarch, now you have 15 Patriarchs, and Churches like the American Orthodox Church didn’t even exist. I don’t know what “change” is however that looks like change to me. You never had your Liturgy in English, you do now.

 

[holdencaulfield]

And read up on the Great Western Schism, you may not like what you find.

I have and I don’t see anything wrong with it, historically the Eastern Churches were in Communion with the Bishop of Rome, you disliked the supreme leadership of him and jumped ship. I don’t see how you are any different than the Coptic Orthodox Church. When things don’t go your way you jump ship. By the way there are very many Eastern Churches, both Coptic and Orthodox that have reunited with Rome.

 

[holdencaulfield]

Then you have the problem that one of those “infallible” popes was Honorius, whom Agatho, Leo II and the Council anathematized.

I don’t believe that Pope Honorius ever made any Infallible statements. You Orthodox think that every single word uttered by the Pope is infallible. This is not true. Very little is infallible.

 

[Hesychios]

…

Pope St. Damasus

“Likewise it is decreed . . . that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it” (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]). …

You cannot be serious!

A person advocating upon his own behalf is submitted as evidence? This is circular and certainly not impartial.

The power of the papacy grew specifically because of the overreaching of occupants of that See. They cannot decree anything upon their own behalf, even Pius IX could not get away with that. He had to call a synod to rubber stamp his claims.

As it is, this document you reference (Damasus 3) comes to us through the Hispana Gallica Augustodunensis, a redaction which may have been created by Pseudo-Isadore himself, and it’s veracity is in question. Not a good source for the Catholic Answers organization to be tapping for support.

Michael

 

[Hesychios]

And read up on the Great Western Schism, you may not like what you find.

I have and I don’t see anything wrong with it,

You don’t have a problem with three Popes at a time?

You don’t have a problem with a Council of bishops forcing the resignation of Popes?

 

[holdencaulfield]

You cannot be serious!

A person advocating upon his own behalf is submitted as evidence? This is circular and certainly not impartial.

The power of the papacy grew specifically because of the overreaching of occupants of that See. They cannot decree anything upon their own behalf, even Pius IX could not get away with that. He had to call a synod to rubber stamp his claims.

As it is, this document you reference (Damasus 3) comes to us through the Hispana Gallica Augustodunensis, a redaction which may have been created by Pseudo-Isadore himself, and it’s veracity is in question. Not a good source for the Catholic Answers organization to be tapping for support.

Michael

Sorry, but this is bad for you. At this point you still followed the Pope, and thus you have disobeyed a Church leader by schism.

 

[holdencaulfield]

You don’t have a problem with three Popes at a time?

You don’t have a problem with a Council of bishops forcing the resignation of Popes?

Oh, sorry that Schism, I thought you meant the East-West Schism. Yea, that was a problem yet it has been resolved. That problem was purely political by the way, nothing doctrinal.

 

[holdencaulfield]

Pope St. Leo I

“Our Lord Jesus Christ . . . established the worship belonging to the divine religion. . . . But the Lord desired that the sacrament of this gift should pertain to all the apostles in such a way that it might be found principally in the most blessed Peter, the highest of all the apostles. And he wanted his gifts to flow into the entire body from Peter himself, as if from the head, in such a way that anyone who had dared to separate himself from the solidarity of Peter would realize that he was himself no longer a sharer in the divine mystery. . . . [You, my brothers], must realize with us, of course, that the Apostolic See—out of reverence for it, I mean—has on countless occasions been reported to in consultation by bishops even of your own province [Vienne]. And through the appeal of various cases to this see, decisions already made have been either revoked or confirmed, as dictated by long-standing custom” (Letters 10:2–3 [A.D. 445])

I have a question. Do you Orthodox denounce St. Leo, because he was the Pope. Because I see my Church as more universal, because we except all Early Church Fathers. One cannot say they accept this statement, yet do not follow the Bishop of Rome.

 

[Hesychios]

Sorry, but this is bad for you. At this point you still followed the Pope, and thus you have disobeyed a Church leader by schism.

Sorry, but you do not know what you are talking about.

Holy Orthodoxy does not have, and never did have a “Pope”. Holy Orthodoxy has no history of being governed from Roma, and Holy Orthodoxy did not initiate the schism. Your church withdrew from Holy Orthodoxy by a single definite act of hubris.

Look at the history and you will see: between 1000AD and 1100AD there were no changes in the way Holy Orthodoxy functioned or governed itself. No new canons were needed, there was no disruption in the reporting order, no new doctrines and no crises.

In that same period, the western church was in a state of great flux, and rapidly evolved a new set of operating modes. Within two hundred years of the schism the east did not change at all doctrinally or operationally and the west introduced several remarkable changes. Having been freed from the restraining influence of the conservative east, the bishops of Roma were able to innovate.

Michael