S
SyroMalankara
Guest
Try again, none of the Oriental Orthodox or Assyrian bishops will be represented or invited here
- Status
S
SyroMalankara
Guest
That’s funny because there are more Catholics in the world today than before VC2! The Eastern Churches in union with Rome were asked to remove latinizations are restore any lost Patristic Traditions and practices. V2 actually promoted Eastern Tradition. Post V2, Easterners, Traditional Latins, etc all are in Communion in the Church. Since V2, the Oriental Orthodox and Catholic anathema were lifted, Catholics and Syriac Orthodox may communion in each others Church, Catholics may commune with Assyrian Church of the East and with Armenians, as well as some other Mysteries. Not all is wrong in the world, again more caricature than reality.
S
SyroMalankara
Guest
Protestants do this proof text stuff with the Bible, this style of misdirection is not helpful except to those you already agree with. Now if you want to get real, realize that a Bull itself is generally limited to a king or a region, so it would be odd to quite it to prove some universal dogma. There are exceptions but normally a Bull refers to political machination.
H
Here_For_Donuts
Guest
“The Church firmly believes, professes, and proclaims…”
The pope’s words seem pretty direct in their meaning.
Maybe the pope personally didn’t know what the church taught, then? Or, as you claim, the pope was proclaiming as a truth a non-truth according to Vatican II revisionists, but it doesn’t matter because it may or may not have been to only part of the church?
The pope was speaking (1) ex cathedra (2) to the whole church (3) on matters concerning faith or morality.
Let’s just cut to the chase. Can you provide a definitive list of infallible papal teachings from the past 2,000 years that all Catholics agree on?
If not, then what’s the point of declaring the pope infallible if nobody knows when he actually is?
H
Here_For_Donuts
Guest
Catholics In Name Only, maybe.
Like my whole family.
I wasn’t even baptized or raised in a religious household. I suspect this is typical for 90% of Catholic families.
S
SyroMalankara
Guest
The list is as long as the Bible
H
Here_For_Donuts
Guest
I just want to see 5 statements of papal infallibility from each millennium that all Catholics universally agree on.
S
SyroMalankara
Guest
Same back at you regarding the infallibility of Christian doctrine found in the Bible, or among Orthodox.
J
Jon_Mallory
Guest
Vatican II is modernist and just proves the Catholic Church goes with the flow. The Catholic Church was the evil empire in the middle ages. Catholics always take the Church Fathers out of context. The Catholic Church is wrong to admit the uncertainty of the salvation for heterodox Christians (even though the Catholic Church is heterodox according to the OC):roll eyes: These are the same old, tired arguments repeated again and again by posters who have no professional status as historians but have merely read some of the Church Fathers (probably not even in their original language).:yawn:
So you like to bring up the Catholic Church's dirt. Well, I am sure the OC has dirt too because the OC is made of humans just like every religious institution on earth. As for which Church is right? well, I think it is fair enough to say that quoting Church Fathers just won't do the trick. How do you know you're not interpreting them anachronistically? How do you know you're not interpreting them with Orthodox or Catholic tinted glasses? The "how do you know part" screams that you (Catholics and Orthodox) are navigating through an epistemological thicket that precludes any talk of history proving the other side wrong...
H
Here_For_Donuts
Guest
What?
H
Here_For_Donuts
Guest
So, nobody is allowed to interpret history unless it’s in a Catholic-approved way? And you state the fallacy that I need “status as a historian” to question Roman Catholicism?
What about all the secular historians who already do?
When I first began studying church history, I had no bias towards either church. It was obvious after a short time that the Roman Catholic faith didn’t exist in the first millennium. The Orthodox faith did, but not the Roman Catholic faith.
Catholic revisionists are like the Evangelicals who have a few clearly deceitful scientists to “prove” evolution is wrong. The anti-science scientists and the anti-history Catholics are on the fringes of their respective fields. Their followers earnestly believe them, and anyone who offers evidence to the contrary is laughed off.
The Papacy as we understand it today is an invention of the Middle Ages. According to modern Catholic theology, all are subject to the pontiff and nobody is allowed to question him in any way whatsoever, because to do so is to question God.
That’s not how things were done at one time. Can you imagine a council declaring a previous pope a heretic and making succeeding popes swear it? Because that’s what happened when Honorius was declared a heretic.
Maybe the pope really is the seat of the antichrist. He “sits in the temple as God.” I recall reading Orthodox saints who’ve prophecied along those lines.
No Catholic can tell me why Constantine would go through the trouble of convening an ecumenical council and enforcing it as law when he could have simply asked the church in Rome for the correct doctrines and enforced those, thus saving time and effort. If the church back than saw Rome as supreme head, then why would Constantine concoct the idea of assembling bishops from all over his empire to settle the church’s internal bickering?
The common-sense answer as to why he would take the more tedious path was because there wasn’t an easier path. The still-pagan Constantine simply wanted to create peace within the church to appease the Christian God. If he had knowledge of a super bishop in Rome, he would have seen no sense in a council.
J
Jon_Mallory
Guest
First, I never suggested you should take the catholic position because if you read my post, you would know that I said Catholic posters here also take a simplistic view of history as unanimously in favor of their point of view. Also, when someone suggests that Rome is the seat of the antichrist, that is a definite conversation ender. That would mean Pope Francis is the antichrist by virtue of being in the seat of Peter. Do you hug people with tumors all across their body? Do you associate yourself with the homeless and marginalized? Are these acts of an antichrist despot?
D
Duane1966
Guest
And yet others, who have studied as little as you, have reached different conclusions, and they also say it was obvious.
And when people present evidence that debunks what you say, you claim they are dishonest, or that they take them out of context. And yet the claim of out of context is easily thrown back at you. You also stated on a different post that you try not to post from religious sources, and yet several times you have linked to some of the most anti-Catholic blogs, and quote what they say as if it is scriptural truth. When people post links that show holes in the links that you post to, you just say the other site is wrong, but never show where they are wrong.
The Papacy, as we understand it today, was in seed form when Jesus changed Simon’s name to Peter.
Since you say this is Catholic theology, can you show me official Catholic teaching that says nobody is allowed to question him, because to do so is to question God?
Is Pope Clement wrong here when he says this?
Isn’t Clement actually making a supremacy and infallibility claim by stating:
A.) that if they disobey, they are sinning?
B.) that Jesus is speaking through him ? ( if God speaks through you, it must be infallible)
Names of those saints please.
This is an easy question to answer. Constantine didn’t view the pope as having that type of power. And when Rome had given him the correct doctrine (since Rome cannot teach error), there is no guarantee that he would have viewed it as correct, or even enforced it. And there is no guarantee that bishops would have accepted it, as you so rightly point out that there were plenty of bishops who do not hold to Rome’s claims. But just because others do not see someone as having a special charism, or type of authority, does not mean they do not have it.
By your logic, since Judas and most of Judea did not see Jesus as being the Messiah, His claim to be the Messiah must not be true.
This Catholic just answered the question that no Catholic could answer
Again, no knowledge of a particular something, does not mean that particular something does not exist.
R
Rohzek
Guest
Donuts, personally I do not disagree with you that the papacy as it is conceived of today is more of a medieval invention/development. That being said, I think more charity is in order. Augustine was correct to say that those who are not members of the Body of Christ/Church are doomed. However, Augustine also said their are wolves within and sheep outside the flock. In short, there is a true institutional Church, but there is more than that. We know where the Body of Christ is, but we do not know where it is not. Therefore, I wouldn’t be so harsh on Catholics nor would I presume to judge Vatican II as poorly thought out and evil.
R
Rohzek
Guest
He basically just made the point that no one of any group agrees on everything. There’s even recent debate on whether or not Pope John Paul II spoke infallibly on female priests. Francis hinted that he thinks he did, but it is a debate.
I think the more interesting question is whether or not infallibility exists in a council or any seat of episcopal power. It’s actually a question that Orthodox debate quite a lot of about.
T
twf
Guest
I believe you have an incomplete understanding of the papacy. You do realize that the Catholic Church still convenes ecumenical councils and synods of various sorts? The idea that Papal primacy as understood by Catholics rules out the need for councils is clearly false. Are you aware that the Catholic Church teaches that the supreme governing authority of the Church is the Pope AND bishops in union with him? Or that Vatican II declared that all bishops are vicars of Christ in their own right? Yes, the Pope exercises universal primacy, but he does not usurp the authority of local bishops. The vast majority of dogmatic decrees have been promulgated by ecumenical councils. This is the norm. The Pope acts in concert with his brother bishops - not apart from them. It is exceedingly rare for a pope to intervene in a local diocese and Rome regularly ratifies the decisions of national episcopal conferences. His power to act alone is more of a reserve power to be used when truly needed.
You didn’t respond to my earlier post regarding the Assyrian canons. You claim that Roman primacy was unknown in the Persian church…yet as noted earlier in this thread, the ancient Assyrian canons do state that the Bishop of Rome is to the patriarchs as the patriarchs are to bishops.
The Catholic Church doesn’t pretend that the Bishop of Rome micromanaged the early Church, nor that the doctrine of papal primacy was fully developed. We do believe in the development of doctrine; however, the acorn that would grow into the tree that is papal primacy was definitely there from the beginning and of divine institution.
On another note, why Eastern Orthodoxy over Oriental Orthodoxy? Without papal primacy, I couldn’t choose between either camp. What makes those bishops who accepted Chalcedon right and those who rejected it wrong? If Pope St. Leo didn’t have the deciding vote, how can you be sure the Byzantines were right?
R
Rohzek
Guest
Pope Leo did not have the deciding vote, although he was given due honor for speaking correctly. How one determines what is Truth is through careful prayer and discernment. In other words, a theological argument must justify itself. The process does not justify the argument. That’s how I chose Orthodoxy over OO, etc.
F
frangiuliano115
Guest
You’ve hit on what, for me, is a very important point.
There is The Church- be it the bldg or the magesterium down in Rome or the Orthodox or the Protestants.
And then there is The Body of Christ. Any christian believer is a member of the body of christ.
Augustine must have said that if you don’t belong to The Church you’re lost. The idea of The Body of Christ didn’t exist back then. I can’t agree with that. I like to gleen my knowledge from the bible; these early church fathers had many ideas and, like I said in another post, I think we should have a personal rapport with Jesus and stop reading about what everyone else thinks.
Of course, that could be dangerous too. Weird ideas could come to fruition. So let’s use all our reading to GUIDE us.
Jesus did want believers to be of like mind - so why are we not?
Important question - important answer.
We’re human and have gotten too far from the original source, Jesus, and have tried to dissect chrisitanity to its most minute fragment.
Fran
S
Sirach2
Guest
Well said. It is overtly obvious that Here_for_Donuts is here for much more than donuts. 
(Radically stirring the pot with every known argument to cast doubt and disparage the RCC.)IOW – no discussion – just :hammering:
R
Rohzek
Guest
Actually, the Body of Christ did exist back then. It comes from the Epistles. Tychonius of Africa was the first Church Father to write extensively on the issue, and he had a tremendous influence on Augustine’s thought.
- Status