Upon This Rock

  • Thread starter Thread starter mrs_abbott
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Of course he must have a well formed conscience. How many people in today’s world do you honestly think have a well formed conscience? For Catholics, this means that their well formed conscience would not make them do anything contrary to the Church’s teaching. It would also mean that if they are not sure of something that pertains to faith or morals they will go to the Church first in their search for an answer.

II. THE FORMATION OF CONSCIENCE

1783 Conscience must be informed and moral judgment enlightened. A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful. It formulates its judgments according to reason, in conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator. **The education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings. **

1785 In the formation of conscience the Word of God is the light for our path,54 we must assimilate it in faith and prayer and put it into practice. We must also examine our conscience before the Lord’s Cross.** We are assisted by the gifts of the Holy Spirit, aided by the witness or advice of others and guided by the authoritative teaching of the Church**.55
We believe pretty much the same things as you Papists

Please realize that this is very insulting to Catholics. You want me to take you seriously then please leave things like this out.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Xenogeek said:
I’m not obliged to believe the Pope is infallible in matters of faith and morals because I’m not a Roman Catholic. I tried hard to become one but I just wasn’t good enough 🙂 So I became an Anglo-Catholic instead. That means I go to an Anglican church and I do a lot of Roman Catholic things, like praying the Rosary, crossing myself with holy water and abstaining from meat on Fridays . . . things which most Roman Catholics do NOT do. Most of them don’t believe the Pope is infallible either.

For what it’s worth, I believe that the Magisterium is right 95% of the time. I follow Anglo-Catholic doctrine where it deviates from Roman doctrine. ACs believe, for example, that Purgatory is not necessarily a place of punishment. We believe that “Some should, all may, none must” receive the Sacrament of Reconciliation. Divorce and remarriage is a great sin but it’s not an impediment to receiving the Eucharist. Other than that, we believe pretty much the same things as you Papists 🙂
Click to expand...
Read this post again and again and tell me if you have not just given any rational human being the ability to shoot your objections down to the sin of pride.

I dont care anyway- this forum spreads nothing but negative stuff.

Look at how your religion started.

Telling. A guy who did not want to follow rules. A guy with power.

Not a Christian quality my friend.
 
:ehh: I know you ultra-orthodox (Edited for ad hominem), Roman Catholics are out there somewhere, so maybe one of you can put a LeFebvrist spin on this:

Pope Honorius espoused the doctrine of monothelitism, meaning that Christ had only one will. This was condemned as a heresy by his successors in the papacy. The Roman Catholic Church now holds that Christ had two wills–one divine and one human.

Maybe the RC Church has a different definition of infallibility, but in my dictionary it means that you are always right, that you never make a mistake. If you are wrong just once, if you make only one mistake, you cannot claim to be infallible. So . . . if the Magisterium was wrong once, maybe it has been wrong more than once. Hmmm?:hmmm:

:blessyou:
 
Xenogeek said:
:ehh: I know you ultra-orthodox (Edited for ad hominem), Roman Catholics are out there somewhere, so maybe one of you can put a LeFebvrist spin on this:

Pope Honorius espoused the doctrine of monothelitism, meaning that Christ had only one will. This was condemned as a heresy by his successors in the papacy. The Roman Catholic Church now holds that Christ had two wills–one divine and one human.

Maybe the RC Church has a different definition of infallibility, but in my dictionary it means that you are always right, that you never make a mistake. If you are wrong just once, if you make only one mistake, you cannot claim to be infallible. So . . . if the Magisterium was wrong once, maybe it has been wrong more than once. Hmmm?:hmmm:

:blessyou:
Click to expand...
I am unfamiliar with Pope Honorius, could you please show me the formal ex cathedra statement that teaches a doctrine that was later declared to be heresy? I have never heard of a formal doctrine having been declared heresy by a later pope. If by espoused you mean he supported the idea, that is different. Infallibility only applies to formally declared teachings to the Church faithful in matters of faith and morals. In other words, the Pope is prevented by the Holy Spirit from formally declaring an erroneous teaching. The Popes of history have been wrong about things many times, I’m sure–just not on formally declared teachings on faith and morals.
 
Xeno, Welcome to the Forums.

Don’t worry, you don’t have to bait us Papist, er Roman Catholics, just to get a dialogue going. I’d expect a good Orthodox to be more Christian than that, though. But whatever works for you.

Anyway, Honorius was declared a heretic by the Robber Synod, between the fifth and sixth synods of Constantine. The synod was never approved by the Pope, who must approve edicts from synods in order to be valid.

Simply put, Honorius was disputing someone who said that Christ’s Human Will was sometimes in conflict with Christ’s Divine Will.
Honorius wrote: ***“. . . in order that people may not think that we are Nestorians, that we waddle into this sectarian mud because of the provoking vocables ‘twin operations’ and, similarly in order that surprised ears may not deduce from our speaking of one operation that we profess the devilish nonsense of the Eutychians.” ***
  • He goes on in his second letter teaching how to speak in order to have the opposite opinions reconciled:** “To avoid the scandal of a new invention, we are not allowed to define that there are two operations. But instead of the unique operation achieving decisions, as some will say, we must speak of one person, our Lord Jesus Christ, truly acting according to His two natures: similarly instead of two operations, we had better speak of two natures and avoid words meaning twin processes; we had better speak of humanity and divinity assumed by one Being, the Godhead’s sole Son, and assert that both natures proceed along their own distinct manners, without separating from or fusing into each other.”***
  • Code: 
    Why then should he speak of only one source of voluntariness a few lines further down?”* *  *For he soon says:** ***“Therefore we confess that there is only one voluntary origin to our Lord Jesus Christ's actions’***”
  • I answer that immediately before writing this passage Honorius had exclusively dealt with His human nature. He consequently wanted to say: there have never been conflicting will-powers in Jesus, namely flesh versus spirit, because the spiritual power of Christ’s manhood did not ask for anything unreasonable. This did Honorius bear in mind which is obvious if we follow what he explains:*
    “Therefore we mention only one will-power in Jesus. He did assume our human nature forsooth, but not the sinners’ one. This nature was such as it existed when first created before sinning; it was not the nature that became vitiated by sin.”
  • This way of reasoning is worthless if we use it to demonstrate that there is only one will-power in Jesus, both a perfect man and really God. But it is quite relevant to show that the man in Jesus has never suffered from opposing impulses, the will of the Flesh and that of His human spirit. For these conflicting inclinations in today’s men are born from sin. But Christ surely enjoys human nature immaculate. *
  • In any case, one could object some passages from the Gospel, such as: “I have not come to do My own will”, and “Not what I want, but You”. They seem to prove that there are two conflicting will-powers in Jesus, considered as a man: an evil, selfish one that refused the Passion, and a second one that did not in the first place want to do his own selfish will, but fulfill the contrary design which was God’s will. Honorius does not fail to deal with this objection a little further on. He answers:
    *** “It is written, He said, ‘I have not come to do my own will, but My Father’s who sent Me.’ and ‘Not what I, but what You want, Father!’ and other things of the same tenor. These do not manifest diverging purposes, but the acceptance of human nature which God has assumed. These words have been uttered for our sake, in order to afford us a lesson, so that we may walk in his footsteps. The devoted Master sets an example for his disciples, so that each of us, in every circumstance, should do God’s will and not our own.”    **
Click to expand...
 
  • This means that Christ has not entertained contrary intentions, so that he should have had to labor to suppress and mortify one of them. But he speaks as though he were dragged to and fro by conflicting impelling powers, to teach us how to mortify our own will-power that is often tempted to rebel against God.*
    Honorius wrote: “. . . in order that people may not think that we are Nestorians, that we waddle into this sectarian mud because of the provoking vocables ‘twin operations’ and, similarly in order that surprised ears may not deduce from our speaking of one operation that we profess the devilish nonsense of the Eutychians.” * He goes on in his second letter teaching how to speak in order to have the opposite opinions reconciled:** “To avoid the scandal of a new invention, we are not allowed to define that there are two operations. But instead of the unique operation achieving decisions, as some will say, we must speak of one person, our Lord Jesus Christ, truly acting according to His two natures: similarly instead of two operations, we had better speak of two natures and avoid words meaning twin processes; we had better speak of humanity and divinity assumed by one Being, the Godhead’s sole Son, and assert that both natures proceed along their own distinct manners, without separating from or fusing into each other.”***
    • Code: 
      Why then should he speak of only one source of voluntariness a few lines further down?”* *  *For he soon says:** ***“Therefore we confess that there is only one voluntary origin to our Lord Jesus Christ's actions’***”
    • I answer that immediately before writing this passage Honorius had exclusively dealt with His human nature. He consequently wanted to say: there have never been conflicting will-powers in Jesus, namely flesh versus spirit, because the spiritual power of Christ’s manhood did not ask for anything unreasonable. This did Honorius bear in mind which is obvious if we follow what he explains:*
      “Therefore we mention only one will-power in Jesus. He did assume our human nature forsooth, but not the sinners’ one. This nature was such as it existed when first created before sinning; it was not the nature that became vitiated by sin.”
    • This way of reasoning is worthless if we use it to demonstrate that there is only one will-power in Jesus, both a perfect man and really God. But it is quite relevant to show that the man in Jesus has never suffered from opposing impulses, the will of the Flesh and that of His human spirit. For these conflicting inclinations in today’s men are born from sin. But Christ surely enjoys human nature immaculate. *
    • In any case, one could object some passages from the Gospel, such as: “I have not come to do My own will”, and “Not what I want, but You”. They seem to prove that there are two conflicting will-powers in Jesus, considered as a man: an evil, selfish one that refused the Passion, and a second one that did not in the first place want to do his own selfish will, but fulfill the contrary design which was God’s will. Honorius does not fail to deal with this objection a little further on. He answers:
      *** “It is written, He said, ‘I have not come to do my own will, but My Father’s who sent Me.’ and ‘Not what I, but what You want, Father!’ and other things of the same tenor. These do not manifest diverging purposes, but the acceptance of human nature which God has assumed. These words have been uttered for our sake, in order to afford us a lesson, so that we may walk in his footsteps. The devoted Master sets an example for his disciples, so that each of us, in every circumstance, should do God’s will and not our own.”      **
    • This means that Christ has not entertained contrary intentions, so that he should have had to labor to suppress and mortify one of them. But he speaks as though he were dragged to and fro by conflicting impelling powers, to teach us how to mortify our own will-power that is often tempted to rebel against God.*
Click to expand...
 
There were five major problems with the synod:
1) That there were specialised workshops fabricating apocryphal documents both in Antioch and in Constantinople in the surroundings of the churches dedicated to Saint John and Saint Phocas.
2) That 227 Greek bishops have, without any qualms, signed the text of the so-called “quintus-sextus” (V - VI) General Council, a wild meeting between the Fifth and the Sixth regular ones, which Rome has always considered as a “robbers’ synod”, similar to the one that took place after the real Sixth synod of Constantinople, and prepared the ”canons of Trullos”, well-known because the Eastern Church has used them as an excuse to allow her priests (popes) to marry.
3) That the texts of the Sixth Synod have undergone so many mutations and interpolations that they are teeming with contradictions.
*4) That forgery is patent when one compares the acts of the Sixth Synod with St. Agathos biography in the Pontifical Annals (Liber Pontificalis). * *5) That Rome has never admitted any accusation against Honorius.* The letters of Saint Leo II which divulge the condemnation have been fabricated by Monothelists. This is evident from a confusion of dates, from the stupidity of the “Pontiff” contradicting St Agatho and Emperor Constantine Pogonat, and writing to Quiricius Toletanus, who had been dead for forty years, and to Simplicius, a Spanish prefect who never existed. If you want more proofs, consult the ‘**Annales de philosophic chretienne’** 1853, second volume. *1) That there were specialised workshops fabricating apocryphal documents both in Antioch and in Constantinople in the surroundings of the churches dedicated to Saint John and Saint Phocas.* *2) That 227 Greek bishops have, without any qualms, signed the text of the so-called "quintus-sextus" (V - VI) General Council, a wild meeting between the Fifth and the Sixth regular ones, which Rome has always considered as a “robbers' synod”, similar to the one that took place after the real Sixth synod of Constantinople, and prepared the ”canons of Trullos”, well-known because the Eastern Church has used them as an excuse to allow her priests (popes) to marry.* *3) That the texts of the Sixth Synod have undergone so many mutations and interpolations that they are teeming with contradictions.* *4) That forgery is patent when one compares the acts of the Sixth Synod with St. Agathos biography in the Pontifical Annals (Liber Pontificalis). *
5) That Rome has never admitted any accusation against Honorius. The letters of Saint Leo II which divulge the condemnation have been fabricated by Monothelists. This is evident from a confusion of dates, from the stupidity of the “Pontiff” contradicting St Agatho and Emperor Constantine Pogonat, and writing to Quiricius Toletanus, who had been dead for forty years, and to Simplicius, a Spanish prefect who never existed. If you want more proofs, consult the ‘Annales de philosophic chretienne’ 1853, second volume.
Click to expand...
 
I’m sorry this has taken so long:
The Council could not condemn Honorius for any heresy, unless warring against itself and Agatho`s letter by plainly asserting contradicting declarations. For in his first letter Agatho, writing as the reigning pope to the Emperor, expressed the doctrine that was read to the conciliar Fathers during the 4th session: “This is the original substance of our faith, the very one that has been maintained in either tempestuous or halcyon days by the spiritual Mother of your most serene Empire. She cannot be any other than the Church of Christ’s apostles, that supported by God’s grace has never wandered out of the true path of Tradition, which the years to come will clearly show; for She has never admitted the corruption of later heresy: on the contrary she has preserved the Deposit of Faith immaculate, as she received it at the beginning from Jesus’ apostles who ruled Her. She will keep it unsullied to the end. Indeed She thus achieves what was divinely promised by our Lord, who said to the Prince of disciples what has been reported in the Gospels; ‘Peter, Peter, now Satan has claimed his right to sift you like wheat; but I have asked for thee that thy faith should not fail; as for thou, when you are converted, steady thy brethren’ May your Serene Majesty think that the Lord and Saviour of all, the very essence of our faith, has promised that Peter’s orthodoxy could not fail and has commanded him to confirm the faith of his brothers; which every one of the Pontiffs that have preceded me, the minim among them, has always done carefully, as has been universally acknowledged.”
  • There you note that Agatho does not only say that Faith has never failed in St. Peter’s See, and cannot fail either, so that the supreme Pontiff cannot officially decree anything contrary to the Deposit of Faith, but also that every one of his predecessors, among whom Honorius is included, has always resisted heresies and steadied his brothers in the true Faith. And, further below, after enumerating as heretical the Monothelists Cyrus, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Peter, Paul and Theodore, he concludes: “Consequently we must use the utmost energy to rescue and liberate the Holy Divine Church from the errors of such Doctors, in order that all the members of the hierarchy, of the clergy, of the Christian population may confess and teach with us the right orthodox and apostolic doctrine which is founded upon the rock of St. Peter, the prince of the apostles of our Church, who through the grace and protection of this self-same Peter remains unsullied by any error whatsoever.”*
Click to expand...
 
Exactly. Honorius once expressed this incorrect teaching in a private letter. It was never taught as I required matter of belief by he or any other Catholic authority.

I admit that this particular example presents a difficulty. But you know what’s so incredibly remarkable? That you can count the occurances of such difficulties in the last 2,000 on one hand very easily!!! In fact this is the worst one - by far. Have another example, Mr. Anglican? Let’s hear it.

As someone noted, the very reason that the Anglican Church so much as exists could hardly be more embarrassing. Sorry; it’s just the way it is. Your Church exists because an English king insisted upon an invalid divorce.

You ought to be Catholic, my friend. You ought to honor Christ’s implicit command to obey his Vicar. You must be really close to being there - if you accept 95% of the teachings, you must be very close.

The Catholic Church is beyond measure the coolest church on the planet. This is related to the fact that it’s also the one with the most Truth. Part of this truth is the institution of the papacy, undoubtedly created by Christ and validated from the earliest Fathers and through the centuries.

Here’s a little bit of the coolness only the Catholic Church possesses:

therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/lanciano.html
 
We’re getting off topic discussing the Pope’s infallibility. Apostolic succession is fine but please let’s not discuss infallibility here. 🙂
 
Well, as I said in another thread, I tried hard to become a Catholic but I just wasn’t good enough.:crying:
 
Paul_Folbrecht said:
Exactly. Honorius once expressed this incorrect teaching in a private letter. It was never taught as I required matter of belief by he or any other Catholic authority.

I admit that this particular example presents a difficulty. But you know what’s so incredibly remarkable? That you can count the occurances of such difficulties in the last 2,000 on one hand very easily!!! In fact this is the worst one - by far. Have another example, Mr. Anglican? Let’s hear it.

As someone noted, the very reason that the Anglican Church so much as exists could hardly be more embarrassing. Sorry; it’s just the way it is. Your Church exists because an English king insisted upon an invalid divorce.

You ought to be Catholic, my friend. You ought to honor Christ’s implicit command to obey his Vicar. You must be really close to being there - if you accept 95% of the teachings, you must be very close.

The Catholic Church is beyond measure the coolest church on the planet. This is related to the fact that it’s also the one with the most Truth. Part of this truth is the institution of the papacy, undoubtedly created by Christ and validated from the earliest Fathers and through the centuries.

Here’s a little bit of the coolness only the Catholic Church possesses:

therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/lanciano.html
Click to expand...
The “coolest church on earth” man that is jive talk. How neat,but is it real? Let me know what is you tokiness is smokin?
 
DARichards said:
I
For example, if he said the Cards would win the World Series, (although he probably is right)😃 , that shouldn’t be taken as an infallible statement.
Click to expand...
:mad: Certainly not infallable. :tsktsk:

[sign]GO TIGERS![/sign]
:D:D 😃 😃 😃
 
StMarkEofE said:
The “coolest church on earth” man that is jive talk. How neat,but is it real? Let me know what is you tokiness is smokin?
Click to expand...
Are you here to help your sister in Christ? You know, the OP?

Or is this another golden opportunity to bash us? :confused:
 
Paul_Folbrecht said:
Here’s a little bit of the coolness only the Catholic Church possesses:

therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/lanciano.html
Click to expand...
You may have Lanciano in mind?

I suppose that it is the oldest documented eucharistic miracle in the world within the Greek Church.

It took place in southern Italy sometime in the year 700. At that time the Church of Rome did not have control of southern Italy but the territory was under the authority of the Greek Patriarch of Constantinople.

The miracle took place in the church of Lanciano.

As history developed, the Greek Patriarchate lost its authority over southern Italy and it came under the control of the Pope.

So the miracle is now preserved and treasured by the Roman Catholic Church even though it started in the Greek Orthodox Church.

Here’s a web site to read, and there are probably more sites too…

miraclerosarymission.org/lanciano.html
 
Paul_Folbrecht said:
You ought to be Catholic, my friend. You ought to honor Christ’s implicit command to obey his Vicar. You must be really close to being there - if you accept 95% of the teachings, you must be very close.

The Catholic Church is beyond measure the coolest church on the planet. This is related to the fact that it’s also the one with the most Truth. Part of this truth is the institution of the papacy, undoubtedly created by Christ and validated from the earliest Fathers and through the centuries.
Click to expand...
So if I am in disagreement with just one teaching, then I’m doing “alright” and am worthy of still being Catholic?
 
mrs_abbott said:
So if I am in disagreement with just one teaching, then I’m doing “alright” and am worthy of still being Catholic?
Click to expand...
In my opinion (IMO) if you believe in Christ you are Catholic. Some Catholics are in schism with the Church and that is sad. Most Catholics in schism if attending proper Church teaching usually reconnect with the Church, thus achieve “full communion with the Church”
hope that helps
 
mrs_abbott said:
So if I am in disagreement with just one teaching, then I’m doing “alright” and am worthy of still being Catholic?
Click to expand...
I nearly fell out of my chair when I read this!

You will always be worthy of being a Catholic for pete’s sake!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top