Pope Says There is Only One True Church

[Grace_Seeker]

Nothing good came out of Martin Luther. He was just another heretic.

Pretty strong statement. I find that most absolutist type statements are in error. Particularly one of this nature. My experience is that there is good in everyone. And looking for it is part of the responsibility of all true disciples of Christ.

 

[Steve40]

Now we just need to couple the Pope’s statement with the Catechism of the Catholic Church section 846 “Outside the Church there is no salvation”.

A friend of mine tried to say that the Catechism didn’t mean the Catholic Church in this statement. Now I have an accompanying statement from the Pope that says the Catholic Church is the only Church.

 

[Ahimsa]

Since I have Gregory the Great on the brain, it seems he would disagree with you:

Not to mention, Mikhail Emmanualovich Posnov (Russian Orthodox Church historian) wrote in The History of the Christian Church Until the Great Schism of 1054, Not to mention my earlier posts showing that Pope Celestine gave Cyril (Patriarch of Alexandria) Rome’s authority to depose Nestorius (Patriarch of Constantinople). And not only did Cyril accept this, he carried out his commission by the pope.

Indeed, the primacy and universal jurisdiction of the pope were known and accepted at least by the 4th century.

Issues such as these were properly addressed in the Eastern Christianity sub-forum.

 

[Sixtus]

Originally Posted by mtr01
Since I have Gregory the Great on the brain, it seems he would disagree with you:

Not to mention, Mikhail Emmanualovich Posnov (Russian Orthodox Church historian) wrote in The History of the Christian Church Until the Great Schism of 1054, Not to mention my earlier posts showing that Pope Celestine gave Cyril (Patriarch of Alexandria) Rome’s authority to depose Nestorius (Patriarch of Constantinople). And not only did Cyril accept this, he carried out his commission by the pope.

Indeed, the primacy and universal jurisdiction of the pope were known and accepted at least by the 4th century.

My dear mtr01

The Primacy of the Pope were known at least by AD115 when my handle Pope St Sixtus [of whom I am most unworthy to use his name] was universally accepted. So too his teachings which among others included the Sanctus which has been prayed in every Mass since around AD 120.

It was also he who said that ‘only Consecrated Hands should touch the Sacred Elements’. That is why as extra-ordinary minister of the Eucharist, minister only the Precious Blood, refusing to touch the Sacred Host.

 

[mtr01]

My dear mtr01

The Primacy of the Pope were known at least by AD115 when my handle Pope St Sixtus [of whom I am most unworthy to use his name] was universally accepted. So too his teachings which among others included the Sanctus which has been prayed in every Mass since around AD 120.

It was also he who said that ‘only Consecrated Hands should touch the Sacred Elements’. That is why as extra-ordinary minister of the Eucharist, minister only the Precious Blood, refusing to touch the Sacred Host.

I agree. The testimony of the primacy and authority of the pope is evident throughout the writings of the Fathers (there is a thread on the Eastern Christianity forum devoted to this). It is interesting to note that the Orthodox (and Rev Dr North who unfailingly sides with their polemic) have yet to offer one objection to any of these claims in the patristic corpus of writings. It is clear as day, but seeing, they see not. One clear example is the letter from Pope Hadrian to the 7th Ecumenical Council, and was just posted on that thread:

We greatly wondered that in your imperial commands, directed for the Patriarch of the royal city, Tarasius, we find him there called Universal: but we know not whether this was written through ignorance or schism, or the heresy of the wicked. But henceforth we advise your most merciful and imperial majesty, that he be by no means called Universal in your writings, because it appears to be contrary to the institutions of the holy Canons and the decrees of the traditions of the holy Fathers. For he never could have ranked second, save for the authority of our holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, as is plain to all. Because if he be named Universal, above the holy Roman Church which has a prior rank, which is the head of all the Churches of God, it is certain that he shews himself as a rebel against the holy Councils, and a heretic. For, if he is Universal, he is recognized to have the Primacy even over the Church of our See, which appears ridiculous to all faithful Christians: because in the whole world the chief rank and power was given to the blessed Apostle Peter by the Redeemer of the world himself; and through the same Apostle, whose place we unworthily hold, the holy Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church holds the first rank, and the authority of power, now and for ever, so that if any one, which we believe not, has called him, or assents to his being called Universal, let him know that he is estranged from the orthodox Faith, and a rebel against our holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. (Letter to the Seventh Ecumenical Council, read in Session II.)

Any response, Rev Dr.?

 

[Sixtus]

 

[Grace_Seeker]

I agree. The testimony of the primacy and authority of the pope is evident throughout the writings of the Fathers (there is a thread on the Eastern Christianity forum devoted to this). It is interesting to note that the Orthodox (and Rev Dr North who unfailingly sides with their polemic) have yet to offer one objection to any of these claims in the patristic corpus of writings. It is clear as day, but seeing, they see not. One clear example is the letter from Pope Hadrian to the 7th Ecumenical Council, and was just posted on that thread:

Any response, Rev Dr.?

So, what you are saying is that there were those in the church who called another patriarch of the Church universal and the Pope objected to it. What is clear to me from this is that the Pope wanted to be recognized as primary, but understood that not everyone else was saw it the same way he did, in fact the issue was significant enough that the Pope saw fit to make it a matter before the ecumenical council. Thank-you for proving that prior to this council there was NOT unanimity in the Church with regard to the primacy of the Pope. For if there had been, no letter addressing it would have been needed.

 

[Antwill]

So, what you are saying is that there were those in the church who called another patriarch of the Church universal and the Pope objected to it. What is clear to me from this is that the Pope wanted to be recognized as primary, but understood that not everyone else was saw it the same way he did, in fact the issue was significant enough that the Pope saw fit to make it a matter before the ecumenical council. Thank-you for proving that prior to this council there was NOT unanimity in the Church with regard to the primacy of the Pope. For if there had been, no letter addressing it would have been needed.

Wrong. Often times, it is not necessary for the Church to make a dogmatic statement on Church doctrine until they are challenged. The primacy of the Pope is just another example of this. It is clear from early writing from the Church fathers that the Bishop of Rome had primacy. It became necessary to further define this dogma later. The Church didn’t invent it, just more clearly defined it.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

Wrong. Often times, it is not necessary for the Church to make a dogmatic statement on Church doctrine until they are challenged. The primacy of the Pope is just another example of this. It is clear from early writing from the Church fathers that the Bishop of Rome had primacy. It became necessary to further define this dogma later. The Church didn’t invent it, just more clearly defined it.

So, the idea was challenged, and challenged not just by Protestants. As I said, there was not unanimity, even within the Catholic church.

 

[Contarini]

Martin Luther was a selfish man. He wanted things his way. He got married to the woman he loved, a former nun.

What biography are you reading? Any honest and scholarly one will tell you that Luther said before marrying that he wasn’t particularly attracted to his wife, though he certainly enjoyed marriage once he entered into it.

Edwin

 

[Antwill]

So, the idea was challenged, and challenged not just by Protestants. As I said, there was not unanimity, even within the Catholic church.

Well, there weren’t protestants back then, and, surely, they challenge the teaching now. Really, the primacy of the Pope was a big reason for the schism with the Orthodox.

There is still is not unanimity in the Church about issues. There are groups within the Church that push for allowing contraception, abortion, women priest, etc. However, those who disagree with the Pope and Magisterium on dogma are simply dissenters within - the Church will not change those teachings. Unfortunately, the Church is a divine institution with human elements, so those dissenters will always be present.

Again, all of the contradictory teachings by so many different people and denominations all claiming to be guided by the Holy Spirit is just proof positive that we need an earthly authority to know the real Truth. I guess I think Christ loved us too much to not leave us such an authority that we “might all be one.”

 

[mtr01]

So, what you are saying is that there were those in the church who called another patriarch of the Church universal and the Pope objected to it. What is clear to me from this is that the Pope wanted to be recognized as primary, but understood that not everyone else was saw it the same way he did, in fact the issue was significant enough that the Pope saw fit to make it a matter before the ecumenical council. Thank-you for proving that prior to this council there was NOT unanimity in the Church with regard to the primacy of the Pope. For if there had been, no letter addressing it would have been needed.

Absolutely not. You have to have an understanding of Church history (how much reading have you done on the topic? do you know who John the Faster is?) and understand the often caesaro-papist relationship between the eastern emperors and the patriarchs of Constantinople (who were often jealous of Rome).

The point is, the patriarch, with the help of the emperor was styling himself “sole” bishop of the church, meaning that the other bishops were bishops in name only (nam si unus, ut putat, universalis est, restat ut vos episcopi non sitis). The popes objected not only because it was contrary to the canons of the ecumenical councils, whach gave Rome the first rank among the patriarchical churches, but also because it destroyed the episcopacy (as Gregory the Great stated, “If any fault is found among bishops, I know not any one who is not subject to it [the Apostolic See]; but when no fault requires otherwise, all are equal according to the estimation of humility.”). In other words, the pope was the chief bishops, but by no stretch of the imagination, the “sole” bishop. Pope Hadrian was reminding the council of the rank and authority of the Church at Rome, and what is more interesting, you won’t find any objection to the letter in the acts of the Council…in other words, the pope’s letter was accepted.

 

[Sixtus]

What biography are you reading? Any honest and scholarly one will tell you that Luther said before marrying that he wasn’t particularly attracted to his wife, though he certainly enjoyed marriage once he entered into it.

Edwin

I thought Luther was an Augustinian friar prior to becoming a heretic? That means he would have taken vows of chastity.

 

[Mannyfit75]

What biography are you reading? Any honest and scholarly one will tell you that Luther said before marrying that he wasn’t particularly attracted to his wife, though he certainly enjoyed marriage once he entered into it.

Edwin

Wikipedia…hehe

 

[Mannyfit75]

I thought Luther was an Augustinian friar prior to becoming a heretic? That means he would have taken vows of chastity.

exactly, Luther was no saint… He was very much like Korah who rebelled against Moses and Aaron in the Old Testament.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

Absolutely not. You have to have an understanding of Church history (how much reading have you done on the topic? do you know who John the Faster is?) and understand the often caesaro-papist relationship between the eastern emperors and the patriarchs of Constantinople (who were often jealous of Rome).

The point is, the patriarch, with the help of the emperor was styling himself “sole” bishop of the church, meaning that the other bishops were bishops in name only (nam si unus, ut putat, universalis est, restat ut vos episcopi non sitis). The popes objected not only because it was contrary to the canons of the ecumenical councils, whach gave Rome the first rank among the patriarchical churches, but also because it destroyed the episcopacy (as Gregory the Great stated, “If any fault is found among bishops, I know not any one who is not subject to it [the Apostolic See]; but when no fault requires otherwise, all are equal according to the estimation of humility.”). In other words, the pope was the chief bishops, but by no stretch of the imagination, the “sole” bishop. Pope Hadrian was reminding the council of the rank and authority of the Church at Rome, and what is more interesting, you won’t find any objection to the letter in the acts of the Council…in other words, the pope’s letter was accepted.

My point still stands. There has been for millenia dissension over this theory (among others), and it has occurred within the Catholic church. Thus, those who assert that the church has always accepted the primacy of the papacy are incorrect by your very own recounting of history. It hasn’t. There have been debates, disageements, schisms, and even little revolts on this and other points that are considered the historic tradition and teachings of the church from its inception to the present. Luther wasn’t even the biggest of them, just the one so many western Catholics seem to get so easily distrubed by.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

I thought Luther was an Augustinian friar prior to becoming a heretic? That means he would have taken vows of chastity.

You’re point being? What? That it is ok for priests in San Fransisco to break their vows because they remain Catholic, but for a man who had been excommunicated from the church to make a home for a woman and take her as his wife when she had no other means to provide for herself is wrong.

I thought the Catholic church was big on morals, but guess I was ill-informed about that.

 

[Sixtus]

You’re point being? What? That it is ok for priests in San Fransisco to break their vows because they remain Catholic, but for a man who had been excommunicated from the church to make a home for a woman and take her as his wife when she had no other means to provide for herself is wrong.

I thought the Catholic church was big on morals, but guess I was ill-informed about that.

My emphasis:
That is a classic ‘Orange’ response. Are you Clergy and/or from Ireland?

My history from the Order which provided him shelter is that early in his heretical career, he was in no fit state to provide for anyone. It was the Catholic Church though excommunicated him, provided him with a home and food without which, he would have died and his ‘mission’ come to nothing.

Strange you speak of Catholic morals, I did not want to raise the issue [which is my interpretation of what you are implying], but the evidence suggests there is more abuse among non-Catholic clergy than there is among Catholics.

But when it comes to human-weaknesses, it is obvious that satan via the media does not bother attacking false Church’s when there is a bigger prize to be had!

 

[Sixtus]

I have just read your profile and note that you ARE clergy: a Methodist Pastor.

My dear Grace Seeker, I can honestly tell you that I have never in my experience come across a Catholic Minister [Deacon upwards] who has attacked any aspect of Protestantism, much less so make fecitous comments.

On the contrary, our local Deacon apart from being the caretaker- ordained Minister for our local Methodist circuit for a year until they could appoint another Minister [following the tragic death of their own dear Minister], he is committed to supporting and building the Methodist Community.

As a former worshipper at a Methodist Chapel [after attending Sunday Mass], I got to know Methodism and Methodist Ministers pretty well. I wish therefore to go on record as saying to my fellow Catholics that the response from Grace-seeker is not typical of Methodism.

In my experience [at least in East Anglia UK], Methodist’s are conspicous by charity and love towards non-Methodists and that also include Catholics.

 

[mtr01]

My point still stands. There has been for millenia dissension over this theory (among others), and it has occurred within the Catholic church. Thus, those who assert that the church has always accepted the primacy of the papacy are incorrect by your very own recounting of history. It hasn’t. There have been debates, disageements, schisms, and even little revolts on this and other points that are considered the historic tradition and teachings of the church from its inception to the present. Luther wasn’t even the biggest of them, just the one so many western Catholics seem to get so easily distrubed by.

This response truly belies your lack of knowledge of Church history. You seem to be under the impression that the Church fathers and councils sat around and debated the primacy of the pope, they did not. All the councils and fathers point to that primacy. You can hardly call a couple of power-hungry and jealous patriarchs the cause of “debates, disagreements, schisms and revolts,” which is terribly misleading. As Gregory the Great (the one who opposed the attempt of the patriarch to usurp the power of the whole episcopacy) wrote:

As regards the Church of Constantinople, who can doubt that it is subject to the Apostolic See? Why, both our most religious Lord the Emperor and our brother the Bishop of Constantinople continually acknowledge it

In other words, the patriarch knew and confessed that the Church of Rome had primary authority, yet he chose to try to usurp this power (and more) for himself.