JonNC;10972107]Ok, where again does St. Irenaeus declare that what Pope Clement writes is infallible?
When Pope Clement declares the faith and the traditions of the apostles. Grant it no needs to use the word infallible. But this letter is recieved and acknowledged as coming from authority =the church of Rome, Peter’s apostolic successor line Pope Clement, and infallible because what is declared to the Corinthian Church from Pope Clement comes directly from the apostles who have written them in letters (sacred scipture) and who have handed the sacred Traditions down both by letter and orally. This is what the Letter composed by Pope Clement contains according to the Saints.
If your looking for the word infallible, one just need to look to Jesus not the Pope. The Pope is just the shepherd who tends the flock with the infallible food supplied by Jesus and the apostles.
If your looking for infallibility other than this, then you are looking for the infallibility proclaimed by the Catholic Church. You are looking for something else.
This is monumentally important to the Church, Gabriel, and yet there is no mention of it in the seven early councils. Nicea holds the jurisdiction of the See of Rome as equal to that of
Alexandria. Nothing here sounds like the early Church is overtly settled on something so important as this. No where does the early Church seem to recognize the Bishop of Rome as having this charism of infallibility independent of the Church or council.
I’m sure you have heard the Early Councils proclaim that after the pope’s have spoken, the council proclaimed Peter has spoken. The church of Rome is held as pre-eminent for all other Church’s to follow long long before there was ever a council in Nicea. In fact the ECF’s who still had the hearing of the apostles ringing in their ears, never even heard of a council of Nicea. These pre-constantinople ECF’s never even heard of a patriarch of Constantinople. They never phanthomed an Emperor overseeing a Church council.
To be in the True Church one has to take all of these historical events and proof’s into account. We can’t start all over with a new beginning with the council of Nicea.
The authority of the Rome has two consequences during the councils. We cannot confuse what is imperalized from the laws of the Emperor’s authority with the divine laws of authority given by God.
This appears to be the Orthodox and protestants position. The Emperors never questioned the divine authority of the Popes. They required the Popes approval on their ecumenical status over the Church matters. When it came to imperial laws of authority we can see uniformity and universal equality among all the bishops. But this proves to be a farce because the Patriarch of Constantinople got all the luxuries and wealth from the Emperor, including power to try and usurps the Popes authority over the Church, which is already well known without ever having to speak.
What proves it is when the patriarch’s of Constantinople begin usurping divine authority over the apostolic sees, but never succeeds over the bishop of Rome proves papal supremacy.
Got to go.
