Pope Fiction

[Isa_Almisry]

I already stated that I thought you were talking about the East/West Great Schism. I don’t see how this has anything to with this either.

Didn’t see that until later. Apologies.

So no need for one pope. Then what’s the argument?

I believe we are the Reactionaries, you started the issue.

We’re the Conservatives.

Many are recent, some are not. I use this as an example to show how you can keep your traditions and return to the Faith of the Early Church.

We never left it.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

So you don’t believe that your Church teaches the Truth?

Of course she does.

But your claim was on one bishop doing so, talking to the Church instead of for the Church.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Do you even understand the issue? How could we prevent that?

Then you have quite a problem, don’t you.

Do some research.

We don’t have that problem.

 

[holdencaulfield]

Didn’t see that until later. Apologies.

So no need for one pope. Then what’s the argument?

No there can only be one Pope.

We’re the Conservatives.

Actually we are, we have always held to the faith, and didn’t change for mere political reasons, As you did, by definition your Church is more liberal.

We never left it.

Not, per say. Because neither Church left one another, they merely excommunicated each other.

 

[holdencaulfield]

Of course she does.

But your claim was on one bishop doing so, talking to the Church instead of for the Church.

The Bishop of Rome is for the Church, the Bishop works together with the Ecumenical Councils, as did the Early Church. That is why our Church can teach infallibly.

 

[holdencaulfield]

We don’t have that problem.

I’m sure you have had more than one leader at a time claim to be the rightful leader of the Church. In fact you have. You had two people claiming to be the leader of Constantinople.

Ignatius, the rightful leader and Photius who you accepted.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I’d be interested as well.

Session 3 of the Ecum Council of Ephesus has this:
Philip the Roman presbyter asserted:
“There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the Apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to to-day and forever both lives and judges in his successors. The holy and most blessed pope Coelestine according to due order is his successor and holds his place…”

So does the Patriarch of Antioch.

Pope St. Cyril replied:
“The professions of…Philip the most religious presbyter of the Roman Church, stand manifest before the holy synod…let there be added to the already prepared acts the proceedings of yesterday and today, and let them be shewn to their holiness…”

The Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church in the 5th century certainly had no problem with the claimed prerogatives of the bishop of Rome. And neither does the Catholic Church today.

Oh? According to the Pope, the council was just to rubber stamp his decision. It didn’t.

And the Orthodox do not have any problem with Phillip’s words.

…WITHOUT denying the headship of the bishopric of Rome, it must be added. The principle of a head bishop is clearly apostolic. It is only the Eastern Orthodox Church which seems to deny it, or at least lets so many of its members deny it. The Oriental Orthodox Church has no part in this Eastern Orthodox innovation.

Due to their relative isolation from each other. There is no sense of an Oriental Pentarchy, or a successor to it.

And as often stated, the Apostolic canon you have cited in support of your proposition also expresses the conciliarity of the Church.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Yes, Pope St. Leo III. He forbade allowing the Filioque into the Creed, however he did believe in it. He just suggested it not put into the Creed. People did it against his will at the time.

Yes we accept him.

Well…(Ephesus c. VII)
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 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.

We accept him as well. I don’t see what your point is. If it’s an argument against Infallibility, then once again you don’t understand it. The Council of Ephesus III and the Council of Chalcedon IV did not forbid the Church to redefine the Creed in order to stop the spread of heresy. Show me where it does, it doesn’t. Furthermore it shows change of your Church that you accepted the Creed at the Council of Lyons and the Council of Florence II.

Actually, no my bishop at Florence (St. Mark of Ephesus) didn’t.
And my bishops were out of the grasp of the emperor, so they weren’t at Lyons II either.

I understand how supremacy and infallibility reinforce each other since Vatican I. So I know to reject both.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

His martyrdom in Rome shows the final expression of faith by St. Peter. Regardless, no Church Father gave Antioch the authority they gave to Rome, nor did the Antiochian Church ever claim to have that authority, it always gave it to Rome.

No, in Acts 15 it is quite clear she gave it to Jerusalem.

Start another thread if you want to argue this. I think that Protestant forums may have some articles about this.

I’m not interested in the other side of your coin.

I don’t understand your point.

That for a supposed universal ancient belief, part of your magisterium did not confess it.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

A major Church without a bishop Are you claiming it did not have a bishop? Are you stating that all his statements in his other letters regarding the unity of the bishop and his Church somehow no longer applies to the See of Rome?

Your argument makes no sense in the CONTEXT of his letters.

Blessings,
Marduk

I merely point out that if the bishop of Rome was the font of the episcopacy, that St. Ignatius would have pointed that out, as he is always harping on the bishop and his role.

 

[holdencaulfield]

Well…(Ephesus c. VII)
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 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.

So with that been said, you would disapprove of adding a line, to better clarify the Faith. By the way no one ever mad you accept the Filioque.

Actually, no my bishop at Florence (St. Mark of Ephesus) didn’t.
And my bishops were out of the grasp of the emperor, so they weren’t at Lyons II either.

Regardless, the Eastern Orthodox Church accepted the Filioque, and then later didn’t. Seems like they changed their mind. The Roman Church has always accepted the Filioque.

 

[holdencaulfield]

No, in Acts 15 it is quite clear she gave it to Jerusalem.

Where?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

To God, a thousand years is as one day.

That’s nice.
Last I checked, all the Apostles and all the believers are human, not God (sorry mormons). So this bromide has no relevance.

And we are taught by Scripture to put on the mind of Christ.

is this crypto-monothelete?

No matter WHEN the Church declares the Truth as the viva voce of God, and for whatever reason or season the Holy Spirit has decided that the Truth must be proclaimed and defended, it is God’s Truth nonetheless.

St. John had a different view. John 20:30-1, 21:25; Rev.22:18.

I can’t believe the monothelite controversy was only settled about 600 years after apostolic times. I guess the Holy Spirit wasn’t doing His job?

No job to do until some half wit came up with a half baked compromise of Truth with falsehood.

Your argument based on WHEN Truth is proclaimed makes no sense in light of Scripture.

The Rock of Ages is not bound by time, nor in need of Scripture, so your refernence to Him makes no sense.

 

[holdencaulfield]

St. John had a different view. John 20:30-1, 21:25; Rev.22:18.

What does Revelation 22:18 prove.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Good one, we don’t believe that will send one to Hell. Don’t act like others did not believe this as well in the Early Church.

No, no, and, outside of Jerusalem, no.

Read what your popes have written in their declarations:

Hence, if anyone shall dare – which God forbid! – to think otherwise than as has been defined by us, let him know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgment; that he has suffered shipwreck in the faith; that he has separated from the unity of the Church; and that, furthermore, by his own action he incurs the penalties established by law if he should dare to express in words or writing or by any other outward means the errors he thinks in his heart.
newadvent.org/library/docs_pi09id.htm

such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.

So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.
fisheaters.com/pastoraeternus.html

45 Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith…47. It is forbidden to any man to change this, our declaration, pronouncement, and definition or, by rash attempt, to oppose and counter it. If any man should presume to make such an attempt, let him know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.
vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus_en.html

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I already said that the See of St. Peter is Rome. All Church Fathers confirm this. No one said that it was Antioch.

Plenty have, including Pope St. Gregory.

And we believe that St. Peter and the Apostles had authority, however St. Peter had the primacy.

Then how was St. Peter “sent?” Acts 8:14.

Do you also believe the Mar Thoma Christians also doubt?

First of all St. Peter lived and taught in Jerusalem. I mean that the authority they have is in submission to Rome.

Yes, he did. But St. James presided over the Church there. Galatians 2 and Acts 15 show St. Peter was in Antioch, yet they went up to Jerusalem for the decision of the Church, which St. James gave (Acts 15:19)

Whats your point.

That you are projecting the late ultramontanism of Rome on the Early Church.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

No there can only be one Pope.

Then you had a problem then, didn’t you?

Actually we are, we have always held to the faith, and didn’t change for mere political reasons,

Read up on the Frankish emperors and the rise of ultramontanism.

and Henry VIII could have had his anullment (everyone else did) if Catherine’s nephew the Emperor wasn’t breathing down the pope’s neck.

As you did, by definition your Church is more liberal.

Both assertions on your part. Both wrong.

Not, per say. Because neither Church left one another, they merely excommunicated each other.

Actually we only excommunicated the arrogant envoy.

 

[holdencaulfield]

and Henry VIII could have had his anullment (everyone else did) if Catherine’s nephew the Emperor wasn’t breathing down the pope’s neck.

Wrong, King Henry VIII was in the wrong.

Actually we only excommunicated the arrogant envoy.

Are we getting anywhere. Here is what I see from the Early Church:

• Primacy of St. Peter
• Primacy of the Roman Church
• Authority of the Roman Church
• Infallibility of the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church

What don’t you agree with?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

The Bishop of Rome is for the Church, the Bishop works together with the Ecumenical Councils, as did the Early Church. That is why our Church can teach infallibly.

Again, read the end of Pastor Aeternus’ definition:

Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.

So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema
fisheaters.com/pastoraeternus.html

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I’m sure you have had more than one leader at a time claim to be the rightful leader of the Church. In fact you have. You had two people claiming to be the leader of Constantinople.

Ignatius, the rightful leader and Photius who you accepted.

Actually at Constantinople IV (879) we, Ignatius and you accepted him too.

Since we don’t have a supreme pontiff, no, we don’t have one, let alone two claiming it.