What Iam in your eyes?

  • Thread starter Thread starter historyfan81
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
yeah but again what iam refering to trasmition of grace is apostolic succession , grace and authority of the apostoles passed to the other new leaders

i hope that clears it up

while i do belive that the bishops have authority they didnt get from apostolic succesion
 
Last edited:
i think i cleared it up in my comment i was not refering to that transmition of grace
 
i do belive that he is , but him being like king of the bishops is something i never understood from the bible or the second century writings
 
Okay, so you would acknowledge that first is still first, right? So first in some fashion but just an a honorary type of position.

Church was under heavy persecution the first few centuries, so I can understand why everything is not spelled out for us in the writings of the Fathers. Probably a lot of material existed that we never got a chance to examine. I also do not see overwhelming evidence from the early Church that the Bishop of Rome was supreme…however, they did seem to look to Rome for some guidance as Patriarch of the West. And when ecumenical councils were called for it was Rome that the east Petitioned.
 
in this context , unfalibale , supreme leader , with juristicion and control over the whole church .
 
Lenten_ashes said:
Church was under heavy persecution the first few centuries, so I can understand why everything is not spelled out for us in the writings of the Fathers. Probably a lot of material existed that we never got a chance to examine. I also do not see overwhelming evidence from the early Church that the Bishop of Rome was supreme…however, they did seem to look to
as Patriarch of the West. And when ecumenical councils were called for it was Rome that the east Petitioned.
Click to expand...
  1. yeah first till first but like yoi said in some fashion not the first as in supreme leader.
  2. this is true the chuch was persecuted , this is why i dont claim anything , and say there is an unknow factor if the church fathers belived this or that , from what we do have we can say they did and we dont know
not always most of the times they would only ask to the bishop of rome to send delegates from the
example emperor Constantine IV asked for delegates and he conviended the council.

west, there are even conflicts where the pope does things that anger the east

example the pope changed and added the filioque , and i get why they did it .do to arainisim

but the east and rightly so got angered that the westerners changed this with out a council

and west responds the papacy has so decreed this, then the pope by his own authority and said its good theology , and did not need a council.

if Papal supremecy was explecity tougth by the early curch fathers these debates in the 7th century and owndards would not exist.

beacuse they would only have to show the documents where they say the pope can Do this beacuse he is supreme
 
Last edited:
that the pope in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church.
 
historyfan81 said:
that the pope in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church.
Click to expand...
So do you object to the concept that he can proclaim infallible dogmas?
 
Last edited:
that he himself can decide what is good doctrine becuse he is the pope without a council? like the filioque? in that regard yes
 
historyfan81 said:
that he himself can decide what is good doctrine becuse he is the pope without a council? like the filioque? in that regard yes
Click to expand...
That’s a bit facetious. The Pope does not just wake up one morning and decide to proclaim something ex cathedra just because: it would be like saying God can make a square circle. He himself can say nothing ex cathedra that would violate the deposit of Faith. I’d expect him to be stuck dead before that happens.
 
Last edited:
Here’s a different question but on the same topic.

Do you at least sort of see the necessity for Papal Supremacy?

We have all the same squabbles as the protestants do in the Catholic Church. The difference is we have a referee to make final calls so we don’t have to keep spinning our wheels on topics. And I even see a lack of unity in the east. They have no universally accepted canon and they are not united on certain issues such as contraception.
 
yeah i agree and with the example i made , of the filioque , it makes sense its doctrinaly sound

but why just add it? was it so hard to convey a council all agree or if thats to much .

at least ask.

no they jsut did and just we did Beacuse the pope is leader and therefore he can do this X with out consulting you , not random chirstians mind you , but other patriachs and bisophs
 
Last edited:
historyfan81 said:
but why just add it? was it so hard to convey a council all agree or if thats to much ask at least

not just we did Beacuse the pope is leader and therefore he can do this with out consulting you
Click to expand...
Where in the Bible is democracy promoted? Does the Shepard consult his sheep for how to protect them? If the Filioque is true, then it’s from the deposit of Faith. Isn’t that what ultimately matters?
 
Last edited:
Except that biblicaly and even in early writtings there is no place that tells us pope is supreme to the other bishops

it was most likely something that was added later , which rigth now is necesseary back then it was not
  1. yes it is true , the eastern churches agreed to avoide the problem they only need it to ask and everyone would have procliamed it
    not hide under the excuse THE pope said so and therefore we dont need a council.
 
Last edited:
historyfan81 said:
Except that biblicaly and even in early writtings there is no place that tells us pope is supreme to the other bishops

it was most likely something that was added later , which rigth now is necesseary back then it was not
Click to expand...
Says who? By what authority?
 
i do see it as necessary today .back then not so much , but right now yes.

with the byzantine emperor gone , the church in the east is like this.

one can argue for the advantages of ceseropapisim , and that was the best system back there.

as the patriach of Constantinople and the patriarch of Antioch (when the Byzantines recovered the city)

where no saints ,but could never attempt corruption or do scandals on the level of the papacy in political maters like the papacy because if they did the emperor was not going to tolerate it.

the down side is that if said emperor and his empire die , the keeper of stability dies with him .
rigth now if he had a byzantine emperor , the Russian schism would not exist.

speaking of the muslims they are also one of the reasons as to why they are so disunited as they were so isolated from each other that they eventually became there own things or it strengthen past separation .

but rigth now with the papacy having no real political power out side the Vatican and no emperor

(Thank god beacuse giving politcal authority to the papacy made it worried on political matters and gain which lead to the selfishness and the questionable things the church did )

i say yeah , its not in scripture like the Catholics says neither is it found in the early writings , but its necessary so everything does not collapse.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top