R
rcwitness
Guest
Wouldnt it be much more of a gesture than mere “observing”?
- Status
W
Wandile
Guest
Yes but the addresses such as the one given by Philip were translated so that the fathers could understand.“It was not till the Renaissance that the age of convenient grammars and dictionaries arose. St. Gregory I (d. 1604) had been apocrisary at Constantinople, but he does not seem to have learned Greek; Pope Vigilius (540-55) spent eight unhappy years there and yet never knew the language. Photius was the profoundest scholar of his age, yet he knew no Latin. When Leo IX (1048-54) wrote in Latin to Peter III of Antioch, Peter had to send the letter to Constantinople to find out what it was about. Such cases occur continually and confuse all the relations between East and West. At councils the papal legates addressed the assembled fathers in Latin and no one understood them; the council deliberated in Greek and the legates wondered what was going on. So there arose suspicion on both sides. Interpreters had to be called in; could their versions be trusted?”
newadvent.org/cathen/03477c.htm
Either way haughtiness and arrogance are not heresy. It’s when you turn those into dogmatic definitions that the issues arise.
IOW there was no father that had not read Philips address. Yet we see no objection to it at the council or even after the council. None Whatsoever. Not even a subsequent ecumenical council mentions the “problems” or “arrogance” in this letter. Rather subsequent ecumenical councils confirm the claims of the legate Philip
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Bishops have resisted Rome throughout history. Saints have confronted popes. This is not unusual.
However, the popes, by and large, do not “claim authority for themselves”.
They *exercise *authority given to them by God.
S
Seraphim73
Guest
You say that. The Church didn’t agree.
G
guanophore
Guest
In looking at the barriers between unification of East and West, it seems it would be much easier if all the statements/dogmas about the Papacy were restricted to the Western Church. Proclaiming supremacy over those that already recognize your supremacy is one matter, but doing so over others that do not just seems to create more of a rift.
It did not/does not in the West. The Papacy grew into what it is today because that was what was needed to make it function. Perhaps this is not the case in other Patriarchies, but it was necessary in Europe at the time.
I don’t know if the Church is able to back off or soften some of the statements that have been declared, but it certainly seems that they are presently barriers to unity.
G
guanophore
Guest
What would have to be done today in order for this to happen?
If it did happen, what would be on the agenda?
G
guanophore
Guest
I am interested in reading more about this. I assume you are speaking of excommunication of the successor of Peter by other Patriarchs?
ewtn.com/library/answers/popeguil.htm
S
Seraphim73
Guest
That actually does bring up some questions. How does God prevent a pope from teaching heresy? I’ve heard people say God would kill a pope before he taught heresy. Do most Catholics believe that? Does the pope lose free will? Why wouldn’t God protect all of his bishop and not just one?
G
guanophore
Guest
I believe that God would do such a thing if needed to prevent the Church from teaching error. Even something as drastic as what happened to Ananias and Sapphira.
No, I think that Ananias and Sapphira still had their free will, just as the Pope does.
Jesus promised to lead the Church into “all Truth”. He did not promise to preserve individuals in the Truth (unless they remain in unity with the Church). I am sure He has preserved individuals, such as Athanasius, so that they in turn could preserve the Church.
W
Wandile
Guest
That. Whole killing a pope before he taught heresy is a true story.
Pope Sixtus V, 1585 - 1590 was, in most repects, a very successful pope. He eliminated lawlessnes in northern Italy, re-filled the Vatican treasury by the use of good business sense and gained control of a rambunctious college of cardinals.
What he was not was a Latin scholar. Nevertheless, he re-translated the Vulgate. The result was a Bible of errors.
He had already issued the bull on his new Vulgate and had it printed. The night before it was to be issued, he died, apparently of natural causes.
St. Robert Bellarmine re-re-translated the Vulgate, correctly, and it was issued properly.
newadvent.org/cathen/14033a.htm
The Council of Trent having stamped the Vulgate as “authentic,” ordered that a correct edition of the authentic, authorized Vulgate Bible should be published. Pope Sixtus V undertook this task. In his preface he claims supremacy over the group of translators, because he had authority as successor to Peter. He tells of the endless hours he spent reading the opinions of others and judging the validity of their arguments. When the work was printed he corrected the press-proof personally. Most certainly, then, we should expect the Latin Vulgate translation of the Bible to be totally error-free, right? After all, it was a work approved and published by an infallible Pope. Pope Sixtus’s edition appeared in 1590. In the front matter, Sixtus affirmed the plenary authority of the edition for all future time in these words:
“By the fullness of apostolic power we decree and declare that this edition, approved by the authority delivered to us by the Lord, is to be received and held as true, lawful, authentic, and unquestioned, in all public and private discussion, reading, preaching, and explanations.”
The infallible Pope Sixtus pronounced that all readings in other editions and manuscripts, which might vary from these of this Vulgate edition, should have no credit or authority for the future. It was forbidden to alter the version in the smallest particle; and anyone who thought or did otherwise was condemned to excommunication. Here was an ‘ex-cathedra’ declaration on a matter of faith, from an infallible Pope.
Linguists and scholars who were really competent to judge that the edition found it full of errors. Yet they could say or do nothing for fear of being excommunicated.
Just about a week before the formal document was to be published along with the Bible, he died suddenly - a man of good health. Many believe this was the work of the Holy Spirit.
P
prodromos
Guest
This sounds very much like the papacy conformed itself to the world.
P
prodromos
Guest
Sounds to me like pope Sixtus V had already made his ex cathedra declaration in accordance with the relevant canons regarding papal infallibility. It simply hadn’t been published. He obviously believed the canons regarding papal infallibility and trusted that the Holy Spirit was guiding his decisions. It doesn’t seem like much of a charism if it doesn’t actually protect a pope from falling into error as pope Sixtus V obviously did.
W
Wandile
Guest
Sixtus V had given his Bible and the Bull to his cardinals and died just before both were released to the public. However his decree wasn’t infallible because didn’t make his decree public, it was not binding on the Church and doesn’t disprove papal infallibility.
Before any Pope makes an ex cathedra pronouncement, preparations are already made… Hence at the time before he was about to officially define and put them in official circulation he died. Just on the eve before these documents were going to be issued, he died…
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Most of it did.You say that. The Church didn’t agree.
R
Ron_Conte
Guest
The Sistine edition of the Vulgate did have some minor errors, but nothing of substance. The vast majority of the text of the Sistine edition of 1590 was retained by the Clementine editions of 1592, 93, and 98. That three Clementine editions were issued successively shows the difficulty of the work. These minor errors were not due to a lack of scholarship or knowledge on the part of Pope Sixtus V. And I don’t know of any source that attributes the Clementine editions wholly or mainly to Saint Bellarmine.
The declaration of Sixtus V on the Vulgate edition of 1590 was not an infallible teaching, nor a teaching at all; it was an exercise of the temporal authority of the Church (prudential judgment), which can err to some extent. The same can be said for official Church approval for any edition of the Bible; it does not imply that no errors of any kind (such as translation or editing errors) are present.
The idea that the Holy Spirit kills Popes to prevent them from infallibly teaching an error is absurd. It is the grace of God that inspires, guides, and protects the Magisterium and the Popes, esp. when infallibility is exercised. Popes only occasionally teach infallibly. Most teachings are non-infallible.
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
He did say ALL Bishops would be protected and NOT just one.
In Matt 18:18 - ALL the other disciples can WHATEVER they bind and lose.
In 1 Tim 3:15 - the Pillar and Bulwark of TRUTH is the Church.
In Eph 2:19-21 - The entire foundation is the Church is laid out and Her Chief Cornerstone.
The Church acting in Unity under One Spirit, not making exceptions for a single Apostle. Any and All exceptions apply to Christ. That’s it.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Understanding the Use of Metaphor in the New Testament
Many non-Catholics object to the idea that Peter was the rock upon which Jesus promised to build the Church, and they offer various alternative interpretations of the rock as being Jesus himself, Peter’s confession of faith, and the curious hybrid Peter and his confession. To support their denial of Jesus’ establishment of Peter as the head of the Church, non-Catholics frequently cite other scripture passages in which Jesus is called the “chief cornerstone” and the apostles collectively being described as foundation stones. These arguments are based upon a misunderstanding of the use of metaphors within the pages of scripture. Author Stephen Ray, himself a former Evangelical and convert to Catholicism, addressed this problem in his book, Upon This Rock:
“In this metaphorical description, Jesus himself could not be the foundation, because in this illustration he presents himself as the builder. The following is very important. In Scripture Jesus is variously depicted as the foundation (1 Cor. 3:11), the builder (Mt. 16:18), the cornerstone (Acts 4:11), and the temple itself (Rev. 21:22). We also see the apostles and/or believers as the foundation (Eph. 2:20, Rev. 21:14), the builders (1 Cor. 3:10), the stones, lithos, not *petra *(1 Pet. 2:5), the building (1 Cor. 3:9), and the temple (Eph. 2:21). Many illustrations are used to explain various aspects of the Church.
One cannot simply substitute one descriptive figure of speech for another in any one illustration thereby mixing metaphors. It does great violence to the textual illustration itself and is a good example of roughshod “proof-texting”, wrongly “dividing the word of truth” (2 Tim. 2:15).
The Bible does not set up a dichotomy—either Jesus or Peter; rather, it presents us with both Jesus and Peter as foundation stones. Jesus is establishing the man who will be the focal point of unity within the Church, the foundation. He who builds upon sand has a structure that crumbles (Mt. 7:24-27). Jesus builds his Church upon the rock of his choice, and, by his protection, the Church has stood the test of time. The powers of hell have failed to destroy or corrupt her” (Stephen Ray, Upon this Rock, [San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1999], 36.)
In this same book, Ray also cites Protestant George Salmon, author of The Infallibility of the Church which he wrote to undermine the teachings of the Catholic Church. On the matter of metaphorical usage, Salmon wrote at length:
“It is undoubtedly the doctrine of Scripture that Christ is the only foundation [of the Church]: “other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 3:11). Yet we must remember that the same metaphor may be used to illustrate different truths, and so, according to circumstances, may have different significations. The same Paul who has called Christ the only foundation, tells his Ephesian converts (2:20):—“Ye are built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone.” And in like manner we read (Rev. 21:14):—“The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them the names of the twelve Apostles of the Lamb.” How is it that there can be no other foundation but Christ, and yet that the Apostles are spoken of as foundations? Plainly, because the metaphor is used with different applications. Christ alone is that foundation, from being joined to which the whole building of the Church derives its unity and stability, and gains strength to defy all the assaults of hell. But, in the same manner as any human institution is said to be founded by those men to whom it owes its origin, so we may call those men the foundation of the Church whom God honoured by using them as His instruments in the establishment of it; who were themselves laid as the first living stones in that holy temple, and on whom the other stones of that temple were laid; for it was on their testimony that others received the truth, so that our faith rests on theirs; and (humanly speaking) it is because they believed that we believe. So, again, in like manner, we are forbidden to call anyone on earth our Father, “for one is our Father which is in heaven.” And yet, in another sense, Paul did not scruple to call himself the spiritual father of those whom he had begotten in the Gospel. You see, then, that the fact that Christ is called the rock, and that on Him the Church is built, is no hindrance to Peter’s also being, in a different sense, called rock, and being said to be the foundation of the Church; so that I consider there is no ground for the fear entertained by some, in ancient and in modern times, that, by applying the words personally to Peter, we should infringe on the honour due to Christ alone.” (George Salmon, The Infallibility of the Church [London: John Murray, 1914], 338-339).
Many non-Catholics object to the idea that Peter was the rock upon which Jesus promised to build the Church, and they offer various alternative interpretations of the rock as being Jesus himself, Peter’s confession of faith, and the curious hybrid Peter and his confession. To support their denial of Jesus’ establishment of Peter as the head of the Church, non-Catholics frequently cite other scripture passages in which Jesus is called the “chief cornerstone” and the apostles collectively being described as foundation stones. These arguments are based upon a misunderstanding of the use of metaphors within the pages of scripture. Author Stephen Ray, himself a former Evangelical and convert to Catholicism, addressed this problem in his book, Upon This Rock:
“In this metaphorical description, Jesus himself could not be the foundation, because in this illustration he presents himself as the builder. The following is very important. In Scripture Jesus is variously depicted as the foundation (1 Cor. 3:11), the builder (Mt. 16:18), the cornerstone (Acts 4:11), and the temple itself (Rev. 21:22). We also see the apostles and/or believers as the foundation (Eph. 2:20, Rev. 21:14), the builders (1 Cor. 3:10), the stones, lithos, not *petra *(1 Pet. 2:5), the building (1 Cor. 3:9), and the temple (Eph. 2:21). Many illustrations are used to explain various aspects of the Church.
One cannot simply substitute one descriptive figure of speech for another in any one illustration thereby mixing metaphors. It does great violence to the textual illustration itself and is a good example of roughshod “proof-texting”, wrongly “dividing the word of truth” (2 Tim. 2:15).
The Bible does not set up a dichotomy—either Jesus or Peter; rather, it presents us with both Jesus and Peter as foundation stones. Jesus is establishing the man who will be the focal point of unity within the Church, the foundation. He who builds upon sand has a structure that crumbles (Mt. 7:24-27). Jesus builds his Church upon the rock of his choice, and, by his protection, the Church has stood the test of time. The powers of hell have failed to destroy or corrupt her” (Stephen Ray, Upon this Rock, [San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1999], 36.)
In this same book, Ray also cites Protestant George Salmon, author of The Infallibility of the Church which he wrote to undermine the teachings of the Catholic Church. On the matter of metaphorical usage, Salmon wrote at length:
“It is undoubtedly the doctrine of Scripture that Christ is the only foundation [of the Church]: “other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 3:11). Yet we must remember that the same metaphor may be used to illustrate different truths, and so, according to circumstances, may have different significations. The same Paul who has called Christ the only foundation, tells his Ephesian converts (2:20):—“Ye are built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone.” And in like manner we read (Rev. 21:14):—“The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them the names of the twelve Apostles of the Lamb.” How is it that there can be no other foundation but Christ, and yet that the Apostles are spoken of as foundations? Plainly, because the metaphor is used with different applications. Christ alone is that foundation, from being joined to which the whole building of the Church derives its unity and stability, and gains strength to defy all the assaults of hell. But, in the same manner as any human institution is said to be founded by those men to whom it owes its origin, so we may call those men the foundation of the Church whom God honoured by using them as His instruments in the establishment of it; who were themselves laid as the first living stones in that holy temple, and on whom the other stones of that temple were laid; for it was on their testimony that others received the truth, so that our faith rests on theirs; and (humanly speaking) it is because they believed that we believe. So, again, in like manner, we are forbidden to call anyone on earth our Father, “for one is our Father which is in heaven.” And yet, in another sense, Paul did not scruple to call himself the spiritual father of those whom he had begotten in the Gospel. You see, then, that the fact that Christ is called the rock, and that on Him the Church is built, is no hindrance to Peter’s also being, in a different sense, called rock, and being said to be the foundation of the Church; so that I consider there is no ground for the fear entertained by some, in ancient and in modern times, that, by applying the words personally to Peter, we should infringe on the honour due to Christ alone.” (George Salmon, The Infallibility of the Church [London: John Murray, 1914], 338-339).
W
Wandile
Guest
This declaration changed the situation from one of temporal authority to an infallible decree ex cathedra binding on all christians
*By the fullness of apostolic power we decree and declare that this edition, approved by the authority delivered to us by the Lord, is to be received and held as true, lawful, authentic, and unquestioned, in all public and private discussion, reading, preaching, and explanations." *
That’s why people like St.Robert Bellarmine were so concerned about the edition. As soon as the pope passes, they jumped on the issue at hand and rectified the translation
W
Wandile
Guest
If this were true then why are there so many heretical bishops in church history yet the see of Rome remain unsullied?
R
Ron_Conte
Guest
Vatican II states the dogma of papal infallibility as requiring a definition on a “doctrine of faith and morals” and the subject area for such a definition “extends as far as the deposit of Revelation extends” (LG 25). Approval for a particular edition of the Bible, and the rules for its use are not included in the deposit of divine revelation. The decree of Sixtus V is not a doctrine (teaching), nor is it, as concerns that particular edition, something found in Divine Revelation. So it does not fall under papal infallibility.
All the improvements to the 1590 edition over the later Clementine editions were relatively minor.
- Status