- Status
E
elts1956
Guest
SIA;4137551:
Talking to SIA mercygate. Goofed when I posted. My apologies.
M
mercygate
Guest
As a summary of Christ’s teaching that He is THE way, and understanding that His Church is THE place where He works salvation, it is an infallible teaching. The conditions it addressed must be considered: those who were “outside the Church” *at that time *were those who had rejected the faith. Today, we cope with a spectrum of “rejection” that goes from Jack Chick to people who don’t even know that the Church IS the Church, what it is, what it means; that is not the same level of rejection and carries a lesser culpability.
So it is possible for that Bull to state an infallible truth for all time, yet in terms specific to the 13th Century. If we apply it to those today whose disconnection from the Church parallels the 13th century conditions reflected in that document, then it fully applies to them. But today, there are people separated from the Church by ignorance or innocence who cannot be held culpable for what they cannot know.
M
mercygate
Guest
P
Peter_J
Guest
^^ I think you’re getting pretty far off from the question of how many ex cathedra statements there have been.
P
Peter_J
Guest
Not to be difficult, but I think the similarities between those two cases are superficial. (Although I don’t doubt that those who told Paul VI he was wrong would have very much liked to be compared with St. Paul telling St. Peter he was wrong.)
R
rinnie
Guest
okay, lets go with one Big thing that the Pope and Peter have in common. Jesus gave Peter the keys to hold, That authority came from God, Okay now Jesus said What my Father has given me I now give to you. Okay Peter was given the keys, and had the Power to also give them up to another the same as Jesus did. Because if Jesus had the authority to give them to Peter and also gave Peter that authority, Peter used that authority to pass on the Keys. Which he has, and did, and is still here today. The Pope still holds the keys.
N
nonjuror
Guest
S. Honorous. Became Bishop of Rome in 625 AD.
At a time when the Monophysite schism was rife and the whole Empire was split on the question the Patriarch Alexander issued a compromise formula which was approved by Sergius of Patriarch Constantinople.
Sergius wrote a ,’Dogmatic Letter,’ to Honorious, Pope of Old Rome favouring the compromise. Honoriuos was asked to signify his view through his ,holy letters,’ on the theological issues involved
His reply stated he supported the writings of Sergius and he supported the compromise! He wrote’ we confess the one will of of Our Lord Jesus Christ,’ (Mansi.)
The result was that the MONOTHELITE heresy resulted. According to Kerr, this minimised or abrogated the Human Nature of Christ.
Dom Chapman, a Roman Scholar, admits,’the result of this letter was the soc-called heresy of Monothelitism.’ 9p17. Con. of Pope Honorius.
The original proponents of this heresy then appealed to the two patrriarchs for support.
This was just the occasion for the Patriarch of the West and Vice Regent of God to have used his “charisma of truth and never failing faith,” and put the heretics in line with Catholic belief! He didn’t!
A Latin Council was held in Rome some time laterthe First Lateran Council (649). It condemned under anathema, anyone who following the wicked heretics should confess one will and one operation in Christ. It declared there were two wills and two operations in Him.
The 6th, General Council was called by the Emperor (680.) The teachings of the two Patriarchs were found to be ,’entirely alien from apostolic dogmas and followed the false doctrines of heretics.’ They went on to say, “we altogether reject them and execrate them as soul - destroying and we have judged that the very names of those whose impious doctrines we execrate should be cast out of Holy the Church of God… With them also we have judged that Honorious who was Pope of Elder Rome should be together with them cast out of the Church of God.and be anathematised together with them because we have found a letter written to Sergius.
The Council exclaimed,”Anathema to the heretic Honorious”.
The Conciliar decree was signed by all the delegate bishops and the papal legates.
The Council claimed in its letter to the current pope Agatho, ‘We have slain by our anathemas,’ amongst others Honorius.
The Emperor in his decree giving effect to the Councils decisions names amongst the villains “Honorious who was pope of Elder Romewho in all things…confirmed their heresy.”
Honorius was condemned in writing by various popes for his heretical beliefs including Leo 11. Also he was condemned by 3 General Councils , Constantinople 111, and the 7th and 8th, General Councils.
An oath was taken by every new pope from 8th, Cent to the 11th, All the popes in this period,over 50 took this oath.
As one can imagine evry possible attempt was made to clear Honorious or avoid the subject all together .
At a time when the Monophysite schism was rife and the whole Empire was split on the question the Patriarch Alexander issued a compromise formula which was approved by Sergius of Patriarch Constantinople.
Sergius wrote a ,’Dogmatic Letter,’ to Honorious, Pope of Old Rome favouring the compromise. Honoriuos was asked to signify his view through his ,holy letters,’ on the theological issues involved
His reply stated he supported the writings of Sergius and he supported the compromise! He wrote’ we confess the one will of of Our Lord Jesus Christ,’ (Mansi.)
The result was that the MONOTHELITE heresy resulted. According to Kerr, this minimised or abrogated the Human Nature of Christ.
Dom Chapman, a Roman Scholar, admits,’the result of this letter was the soc-called heresy of Monothelitism.’ 9p17. Con. of Pope Honorius.
The original proponents of this heresy then appealed to the two patrriarchs for support.
This was just the occasion for the Patriarch of the West and Vice Regent of God to have used his “charisma of truth and never failing faith,” and put the heretics in line with Catholic belief! He didn’t!
A Latin Council was held in Rome some time laterthe First Lateran Council (649). It condemned under anathema, anyone who following the wicked heretics should confess one will and one operation in Christ. It declared there were two wills and two operations in Him.
The 6th, General Council was called by the Emperor (680.) The teachings of the two Patriarchs were found to be ,’entirely alien from apostolic dogmas and followed the false doctrines of heretics.’ They went on to say, “we altogether reject them and execrate them as soul - destroying and we have judged that the very names of those whose impious doctrines we execrate should be cast out of Holy the Church of God… With them also we have judged that Honorious who was Pope of Elder Rome should be together with them cast out of the Church of God.and be anathematised together with them because we have found a letter written to Sergius.
The Council exclaimed,”Anathema to the heretic Honorious”.
The Conciliar decree was signed by all the delegate bishops and the papal legates.
The Council claimed in its letter to the current pope Agatho, ‘We have slain by our anathemas,’ amongst others Honorius.
The Emperor in his decree giving effect to the Councils decisions names amongst the villains “Honorious who was pope of Elder Romewho in all things…confirmed their heresy.”
Honorius was condemned in writing by various popes for his heretical beliefs including Leo 11. Also he was condemned by 3 General Councils , Constantinople 111, and the 7th and 8th, General Councils.
An oath was taken by every new pope from 8th, Cent to the 11th, All the popes in this period,over 50 took this oath.
As one can imagine evry possible attempt was made to clear Honorious or avoid the subject all together .
B
bpbasilphx
Guest
The popes of today are lavished in wealth,
**John Paul II left almost nothing. Neither did Paul VI or John XXIII to my knowledge.
Of course, truth means nothing to Catholic bashers.**
**John Paul II left almost nothing. Neither did Paul VI or John XXIII to my knowledge.
Of course, truth means nothing to Catholic bashers.**
C
CatsAndDogs
Guest
P
Peter_J
Guest
Good post, nonjuror.
I think this is a better example (as compared with the one about Pope Paul VI) of something that’s analogous to St. Paul rebuking St. Peter.
E
elts1956
Guest
Hello SIA. In my limited capacity for understanding Scripture, I believe you are talking about Paul’s rebuking Peter regarding the Gentiles and all that would encompass? Dietary laws, ritual etc? Peter had a hard time accepting the Gentiles, but eventually he came to understand that Christ’s message is for all people, not only the Chosen people. This is the only time I know of that Peter was rebuked for his teachings unless you can quote another time?
N
nonjuror
Guest
Sorry for that!PARAGRAPHS!?
My eyes thank you in advance.
There were paragraphs at one time/ They made the letter as long as the early scriptures. So I binned them as it were.
N
nonjuror
Guest
The question is not Peter’s attitude to contemporary Jewry, but the way that contemporary Romanism interprets scripture to arrive at the conclusion that (a) S.Peter was an infallible pope. The question is HOW DO YOU ARRIVE AT THAT POSITION?
Originally the faith was derived from Scripture interpretated by Holy Fathers in Council. Following the teaching s of the Canon of S.Vincent of Lerins. I cannot find anywhere that the Scriptures or the early fathers have a consensus on this matter!!!
If SIA Permits ?
E
elts1956
Guest
Maybe this will help. If you want further info. go to:
newadvent.org/cathen/03712a.htm
“The oldest literature of the Church”, says Professor Harnack, (Adolf von Harnack)
Encyclopedia of World Biography | Date: 2004
Adolf von Harnack The German theologian and scholar Adolf von Harnack (1851-1930) fashioned the historicopositivist approach to the theology and origin of Christianity, which characterized the study of religion in the first half of the 20th century.
“is, in the main points and in most of its details, from the point of view of literary history, veracious and trustworthy . . . .
He who attentively studies these letters (those i.e. of Clement and Ignatius) cannot fail to see what a fullness of traditions, topics of preaching, doctrines, and forms of organization already existed in the time of Trajan (A.D. 98-117), and in particular churches had reached permanence” (Chronologie der altchristlichen Literature, Bk. I, pp. 8, 11).
According to the accepted chronology, these (Christ’s Apostles) began their mission on the day of Pentecost, A.D. 29, which day is regarded, accordingly, as the birthday of the Christian Church.
John Chapter 14
Christ’s discourse after his last supper
15 If you love me, keep my commandments. 16 And I will ask the Father: and he shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you for ever: Paraclete… That is, a comforter: or also an advocate; inasmuch as by inspiring prayer, he prays, as it were, in us, and pleads for us. For ever… Hence it is EVIDENT that this Spirit of Truth was NOT ONLY promised to the persons of the apostles, BUT ALSO TO THEIR SUCCESSORS THROUGH ALL GENERATIONS.
And so, even though Peter may have flubbed up in his first teachings, he was corrected by others and came around to the proper way of expanding the teachings of Christ. Therefore he was infallible in his teachings of CHRIST’S WORD through the protection of the Holy Spirti.
S
SIA
Guest
Can you think of one instance in the history of the popes where one of them was challenged in his authority or knowledge of teaching by anyone? I’m not speaking of infallibility here. This has nothing to do with that.
E
elts1956
Guest
Right now, I can think of only one instance, however I am sure there were a few challengers in the history of the Church. In this one instance and I’ll be darned if I can remember who, what, when, but one of the Saints, female, who later became a Doctor of the Church did challenge one of the Popes. In fact, I think she “SLAPPED”
him. The nerve.Maybe someone else here can remember the involved parties?? As I said, I am sure there are many more instances, but I am not familiar with them. Sorry.
T
TriuneUnity
Guest
Possibly Catherine of Siena?Right now, I can think of only one instance, however I am sure there were a few challengers in the history of the Church. In this one instance and I’ll be darned if I can remember who, what, when, but one of the Saints, female, who later became a Doctor of the Church did challenge one of the Popes. In fact, I think she “SLAPPED”
Maybe someone else here can remember the involved parties?? As I said, I am sure there are many more instances, but I am not familiar with them. Sorry.
E
elts1956
Guest
Could be. Not really familiar with her story so will have to look it up. Thanks.
- Status