G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Yea I have to dig around for them, actually there were two I read. I should have posted them here the other day but I thought it was common knowledge. 
God Bless, Gary
God Bless, Gary
What official infallible declaration of any Pope on morals would you as a non-Catholic Christian object to and why?
- Status
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
The Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople is first in honour among all the Eastern Orthodox bishops, presides in person - or through a delegate - over any council of Orthodox primates and/or bishops in which he takes part and serves as primary spokesman for the Orthodox communion, especially in ecumenical contacts with other Christian denominations. He has no direct jurisdiction over the other patriarchs or the other autocephalous Orthodox churches, but he, alone among his fellow-primates, enjoys the right of convening extraordinary synods consisting of them and/or their delegates to deal with ad hoc situations and has also convened well-attended Pan-Orthodox Synods in the last forty years.
In addition to being the spiritual leader of 300 million Orthodox Christians worldwide, he is the direct administrative superior of dioceses and archdioceses serving millions of Greek, Ukrainian, Rusyn and Albanian believers in North and South America, Western Europe, Australia and New Zealand, Hong Kong, Korea, Southeast Asia and parts of modern Greece which, for historical reasons, do not fall under the jurisdiction of the Church of Greece.
I donāt have the newest ones I came across the other day. When I get on my system Iāll chase them down, this ones ancient. I know you know this. The newer ones were talking establishing jurisdiction, which kinda surpized me.
God Bless, Gary
In addition to being the spiritual leader of 300 million Orthodox Christians worldwide, he is the direct administrative superior of dioceses and archdioceses serving millions of Greek, Ukrainian, Rusyn and Albanian believers in North and South America, Western Europe, Australia and New Zealand, Hong Kong, Korea, Southeast Asia and parts of modern Greece which, for historical reasons, do not fall under the jurisdiction of the Church of Greece.
I donāt have the newest ones I came across the other day. When I get on my system Iāll chase them down, this ones ancient. I know you know this. The newer ones were talking establishing jurisdiction, which kinda surpized me.
God Bless, Gary
M
Mickey
Guest
K
KathleenGee
Guest
Rome was essentially the center and support of the growth of Christianity. The Eastern churches had their own jurisdiction, as noted here. But it was invading forces; just look at what Islam had destroyed in prior ancient Christian countries such as Palestine, Egypt, Syria, and its overtaking of Constantinople, and what Islam had done to Spain for 700 years.
It took 400 years for the pope to call on a crusades to help pilgrims and those Christians residing in the Holy Land and other places from the violent Islamization of warring tribes.
There was increasing problems defining faith with temporal rulers controlling the Church up to Pope Innocent III. The Churchās duty is to always proclaim the Will of God to its people.
And the model that worked was that of having a bishop with presbyters rather than the conciliar model, put into place by 100 AD.
I find the Catholic Church much more a distinct light to the world today. We may not have the beautiful liturgies of the East, but the Catholic Church does promote love of neighborā¦this a more universal faith declaring Christ lived, died and resurrected for all. And so we must treat our neighbor with Christās love.
The Catholic Church works constantly to incoroporate new people as well as incorporate their gifts into the universal church. I think universality is stronger and more reflective of the gospels than ethnic churches.
I know of the Ethiopian Churchesā¦some of them returned to the Roman jursidiction. There is an Orthodox church there but its members look down on the Roman Catholics as being inferior and also having darker skinā¦
So being under the papacy does draw one to a more universal and equal perspective to other believers in Christ. John Paul II went to Greece to ask for forgiveness of what a brigand of Crusaders did a long time ago, but they would not forgive.
It took 400 years for the pope to call on a crusades to help pilgrims and those Christians residing in the Holy Land and other places from the violent Islamization of warring tribes.
There was increasing problems defining faith with temporal rulers controlling the Church up to Pope Innocent III. The Churchās duty is to always proclaim the Will of God to its people.
And the model that worked was that of having a bishop with presbyters rather than the conciliar model, put into place by 100 AD.
I find the Catholic Church much more a distinct light to the world today. We may not have the beautiful liturgies of the East, but the Catholic Church does promote love of neighborā¦this a more universal faith declaring Christ lived, died and resurrected for all. And so we must treat our neighbor with Christās love.
The Catholic Church works constantly to incoroporate new people as well as incorporate their gifts into the universal church. I think universality is stronger and more reflective of the gospels than ethnic churches.
I know of the Ethiopian Churchesā¦some of them returned to the Roman jursidiction. There is an Orthodox church there but its members look down on the Roman Catholics as being inferior and also having darker skinā¦
So being under the papacy does draw one to a more universal and equal perspective to other believers in Christ. John Paul II went to Greece to ask for forgiveness of what a brigand of Crusaders did a long time ago, but they would not forgive.
K
KathleenGee
Guest
Alot of people are not Catholics because they cannot deal with the disciplines, or it is this issue of human authority in light of their own sinfulness. How can one see a sinner as a representative of God?..
We do not look too much at the human side of the church. Our focus is Jesus Christ in the Holy Spirit, and we all partake in the priesthood of Jesus Christ. It is an experience, a reality that transcends human authority.
Our local church, diocese, instructs and gives us perspective on papal teachings. Practically all of them in my life time are pastoral in nature.
The dogmas on Mary essentially took 2000 years to understand and comprehend as a church, and it took 2,000 years of common, universal Christian Eucharistic experience, to define Marian dogmas. In essence, she is the only perfect Christian follower of Jesus and has her unique place with us, sharing her spiritual gifts with us, full of grace.
We do not look too much at the human side of the church. Our focus is Jesus Christ in the Holy Spirit, and we all partake in the priesthood of Jesus Christ. It is an experience, a reality that transcends human authority.
Our local church, diocese, instructs and gives us perspective on papal teachings. Practically all of them in my life time are pastoral in nature.
The dogmas on Mary essentially took 2000 years to understand and comprehend as a church, and it took 2,000 years of common, universal Christian Eucharistic experience, to define Marian dogmas. In essence, she is the only perfect Christian follower of Jesus and has her unique place with us, sharing her spiritual gifts with us, full of grace.
M
Mickey
Guest
Such an strange thing to say. You are implying that only the Roman Church teaches love thy neighbor?
What do you mean by āethnic churchesā.
Huh? Such an odd statement.
What?
M
Mickey
Guest
The scholastic philosophy can be quite juridical.
Others would say that Rome had some innovations regarding āthe dogmas on Maryā of relatively recent times.
A
Anna_Scott
Guest
Gary,
You are the one who posted the link on the doctrinal authority of papal encyclicals, which discusses the complicated infallibility issue of the papal encyclicals, which of course involves history.
You also posted Unam Sanctam, which states, āoutside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins.ā
Also, āNo Salvation outside of the CCā was number one on rinnieās list of ānon-Ex Cathedra teachings to which Catholics must submit religious mind and will.ā
I responded to the statement in Unam Sanctam: āwe define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.ā (And I did some homework and added quotes from other Popes also claiming there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church.)
And I asked the logical question for a thread about what official infallible declaration of any Pope on morals would you as a non-Catholic Christian object to and why:
Youāve responded by telling me that I have really placed this āunder a magnifying glass and view every word with scrutiny.ā ??? Iām gathering from the other parts of your post that the answer to my question is āno.ā Is that correct?
Peace,
Anna
A
Anna_Scott
Guest
rinnie,
Unam Sanctam stated "We declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."
So, how can you say āthis teaching has nothing to do with the Roman Pontiff?ā Please clarify.
Pope John XXIII also stated, āThe Saviour Himself is the door of the sheepfold: āI am the door of the sheep.ā Into this fold of Jesus Christ, no man may enter unless he be led by the Sovereign Pontiff. . .ā
See other quotes in Post #139.
Iām not trying to make Unam Sanctam, or the words of any Pope, say what I want them to say. Iām simply asking if their words are infallible.
This is your chance to clarify the meaning of the words of Unam Sanctam: āWe declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.ā?
Iām simply asking if the words of the Popes I quoted in Post #139 are considered infallible. Otherwise, I canāt really answer the OPās question as to whether or not I object to them.
Remember the thread topic: What official infallible declaration of any Pope on morals would you as a non-Catholic Christian object to and why?
rinnie,
I appreciate all that you shared in this post and your other posts to me; but you havenāt really answered my question (unless I missed it-if so, please give me the post number.)
This above question requires a āyesā or ānoā answer. Of course, I welcome your comments about your answer.
Peace,
Anna
A
Anna_Scott
Guest
I did delve into these issues in two threads I started quite awhile ago (and on threads started by others.)
My two threads were based on "The Primacy of Peter, Essays in Ecclesiology and the Early Church," John Meyendorff, Editor.
Orthodox-What is Your View Re The āPrimacyā of Peter/Keys?
Started 09/02/2010
Link: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=490592&page=5
&
Orthodox and Anglicans-Compare & Contrast Primacy of Peter/Keys/Rock/Authority
Started 09/04/2010
Link: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=491161&page=5
I realize doing the Orthodox beliefs justice, would require threads dedicated solely for that purpose. My intention is not to derail this thread. It was the statement in Unam Sanctam: āWe declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiffā that caused me to ask if that would exclude even the Eastern Orthodox from salvation.
I apologize, if my comment took this thread off topic.
Peace,
Anna
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Why are you worried about not having Salvation?
E
ExLibris
Guest
His Holiness is the Vicar of Christ. Any official decree from him I will try to follow.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Anne, It all comes down to if you believe we live by Christs mercy āaloneā by the moment. Which btw I do. Though I donāt believe in Faith alone but Faith through Good Works which is more in-line with Feed My Sheep.
Authority isnāt my strong suit I find it arrogant yet I will say I am very impressed with Benedict XVI.
Gods children live everywhere on earth no one has a monoply on Gods Will. I tend to view the Catholic Church in history with Scripture and the first 300 years of the church accurate.
The Rock, Keys, power to bind and lose etc. I understand the Paul theory and equal distrubution among the apostles, I find it lacking. Yet thats not what the first 300 years of the church fathers are saying. Its Rome is the primacy and is the Apostolic Succession is in fact history. There seemed to be no debate over this when christianity wasnāt so popular. And it stands the test of time in history the first few centurys of martyrs. The fact that the CC is where it is today in Christainity. I donāt believe happened by coincidence either. I believe the gates of hell will never prevail against it. And the key word there is āprevailā. Lot of temptation out here.
In context of History the CC looks pretty rock solid to me as far as what Iāve discussed.
Then comes conversion in Rome and more āauthorityā and lofy ideaās of who has it through the centurys etc. Do we need it? Well you know the story.
Do I believe that a good christian can be saved by God outside the Cathoic Church? People convert in Islam through just reading about Jesus Christ. Of course I do. I view it more in line with what is the best way to save the most Souls. Today I see the CC doing this.
We reached a period where everyone thinks they are right. All the Christian Churchs canāt be right. The only church that appears right to me even with its human flaws is the Catholic Church.
But then everyone has an opinion and is entitled to it. What is the truth, What is Truth?
Seems we get caught up on issue like infallibility, authority, jurisdiction, which all sound veryā¦human to me. Many claim the CC has no claim to authority, when in fact are these others not claiming the exact same thing presented in a different recipe?
God Bless, Gary
Authority isnāt my strong suit I find it arrogant yet I will say I am very impressed with Benedict XVI.
Gods children live everywhere on earth no one has a monoply on Gods Will. I tend to view the Catholic Church in history with Scripture and the first 300 years of the church accurate.
The Rock, Keys, power to bind and lose etc. I understand the Paul theory and equal distrubution among the apostles, I find it lacking. Yet thats not what the first 300 years of the church fathers are saying. Its Rome is the primacy and is the Apostolic Succession is in fact history. There seemed to be no debate over this when christianity wasnāt so popular. And it stands the test of time in history the first few centurys of martyrs. The fact that the CC is where it is today in Christainity. I donāt believe happened by coincidence either. I believe the gates of hell will never prevail against it. And the key word there is āprevailā. Lot of temptation out here.
In context of History the CC looks pretty rock solid to me as far as what Iāve discussed.
Then comes conversion in Rome and more āauthorityā and lofy ideaās of who has it through the centurys etc. Do we need it? Well you know the story.
Do I believe that a good christian can be saved by God outside the Cathoic Church? People convert in Islam through just reading about Jesus Christ. Of course I do. I view it more in line with what is the best way to save the most Souls. Today I see the CC doing this.
We reached a period where everyone thinks they are right. All the Christian Churchs canāt be right. The only church that appears right to me even with its human flaws is the Catholic Church.
But then everyone has an opinion and is entitled to it. What is the truth, What is Truth?
Seems we get caught up on issue like infallibility, authority, jurisdiction, which all sound veryā¦human to me. Many claim the CC has no claim to authority, when in fact are these others not claiming the exact same thing presented in a different recipe?
God Bless, Gary
A
Anna_Scott
Guest
GaryTaylor,
I appreciate your comments Gary and the testament to your faith.
Peace to you and all on this thread.
Singing offā
Anna
R
rinnie
Guest
Okay Anna lets put it this way. Can you show me where in the scripture it says that the Church was not build on Peter and St. Peter does not have the keys to the kingdom.rinnie,
Unam Sanctam stated "We declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."
So, how can you say āthis teaching has nothing to do with the Roman Pontiff?ā Please clarify.
Pope John XXIII also stated, āThe Saviour Himself is the door of the sheepfold: āI am the door of the sheep.ā Into this fold of Jesus Christ, no man may enter unless he be led by the Sovereign Pontiff. . .ā
See other quotes in Post #139.
Iām not trying to make Unam Sanctam, or the words of any Pope, say what I want them to say. Iām simply asking if their words are infallible.
This is your chance to clarify the meaning of the words of Unam Sanctam: "We declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."?
Iām simply asking if the words of the Popes I quoted in Post #139 are considered infallible. Otherwise, I canāt really answer the OPās question as to whether or not I object to them.
Remember the thread topic: What official infallible declaration of any Pope on morals would you as a non-Catholic Christian object to and why?
rinnie,
I appreciate all that you shared in this post and your other posts to me; but you havenāt really answered my question (unless I missed it-if so, please give me the post number.)
This above question requires a āyesā or ānoā answer. Of course, I welcome your comments about your answer.
Peace,
Anna
So my answer would be a yes with the exception that there are people who do not understand the teaching or have not been taught the teaching. Because God will not hold something against you that was not revealed to you. But if you know the scripture to be true and refuse to accept the teaching
Now I can show you the scripture which I am sure you can agree exists that says Peter has the keys to the kingdom.
Now if Christ did not give the Pope the keys to the kingdom I would say no. But why would Christ GIVE him the keys to the kingdom if the keys were not needed?
Why would Christ say to PETER and ONLY PETER I give YOU the keys to the kingdom. Why did he not say I give to all of you the keys to the kingdom.
Unless you are going to argue the point as others do that Christ did not say that. That they ALL had the keys given to them. Then you would have to show me that all the the Apostles were named PETER.
M
Mickey
Guest
Christ is the Head. The Apostles and prophets are the foundation.
Eph 2:19-20
Now therefore you are no more strangers and foreigners; but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and the domestics of God, Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone:
We can read in Matt 16:19 that the keys are connected with authority to bind and loose. In Matt 18:18 we see that all the apostles received this authority (see also Jn 20:22-23). St Peter and all the Apostles hold the keys by virtue of the power to bind and looseāand through the holy Apostles to Christās Church.
And therefore it is said to him, preferentially, after the confession: "And I give thee the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven: and if thou bindest upon the earth, it will be bound in the Heavens: and if thou loosenest upon the earth, it will be loosened in the Heavens (Mt 16; 19). Wherefore it was not one man, but rather the One Universal Church, that received these ākeysā and the right āto bind and loosen.ā And that actually it was the Church that received this right, and not exclusively a single person, turn your attention to another place of the Scriptures, where the same Lord says to also all His Apostles: āReceive ye the Holy Spiritā ā and further after this: āWhoseso sins ye remit, are remitted them: and whoseso sins ye retain, are retainedā (Jn 20:22-23); or: āwith what ye bind upon the earth, will be bound in Heaven: and with what ye loosen upon the earth, will be loosened in the Heavensā (Mt 18:18). Thus, it is the Church that binds, the Church that loosens; the Church, built upon the foundational corner-stone ā Jesus Christ Himself (Eph 2:20) doth bind and loosen. Let both the binding and the loosening be feared: the loosening, in order not to fall under this again; the binding, in order not to remain forever in this condition. Wherefore āby the passions of his own sins ā says Wisdom ā is each ensnaredā (Prov 5:22); and except for Holy Church nowhere is it possible to receive the loosening.
St Augustine
E
exnihilo
Guest
I am not opposed to the idea that the Church was built on Peter as Catholics mean. But having been exposed to Protestant arguments and thinking, and using basic analysis I see several problems with your conclusion based solely on the Bible verse.
Keys to the Kingdom almost certainly is a metaphor. I doubt, but dont claim it to be impossible, that Peter literally has keys. So what does the metaphor mean? Based solely on this verse we cant be too sure. Weād need more information.
Also that fact that it is recorded that Jesus said this to Peter does not, by itself, mean he did not say the same thing to other Apostles. He could have said this to other Apostles and it was just not recorded. And in the two translations I consulted the word only, or one like it, does not appear. So the statement, but itself, does not present an idea of strict exclusivity.
I would say if God truly is moving in the Gospel writers (and of course the Apostles) then it would seem reasonable to believe that God made sure his message was communicated appropriately. I would also say that in the context of the passage it does appear that there is a strong hint of exclusivity for Peterās role in the church.
I say this not to nit pick or to disagree with the Catholic Churchās teaching but to express how difficult I find justification of ideas through scripture. In my Protestant experience I find all sorts of what I think are terrible and obviously wrong ideas being pulled out of scripture. I see people ignore context, ignore the full testimony of scripture, and being overly precise where there should be uncertainty. To clarify the last observation what I mean is the text is often missing words like āonlyā, āallā, āabsolutelyā, āforeverā to fully exclude any alternative.
The reason I bring this up is because for me personally Iāve grown a bit frustrated at using Bible verses to defend a position. I see people, including me, throwing Bible verses at each other to try to convince the other. It seems to rarely work to convince. Iāve spent a lot of mental energy trying to understand just what the Bible means. In many areas I feel pretty confident that I the meaning is clear. But in many other areas Iām not as sure. I see a lot of division in the Church being argued over using Bible verses that are not frankly clear or absolute in their meaning. That is why Iāve personally found myself increasingly drawn to the power of tradition.
A
Anna_Scott
Guest
Thank you for answering my question. You agree the statement in Unam Sanctam: āWe declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff,ā is an infallible teaching,So my answer would be a yes with the exception that there are people who do not understand the teaching or have not been taught the teaching. Because God will not hold something against you that was not revealed to you. But if you know the scripture to be true and refuse to accept the teaching
-----but even though this infallible teaching says, āit is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff,ā some human creatures, not subject to the Roman Pontiff, will be saved? Doesnāt that contract the infallible teaching?
-----Did Unam Sanctam, which you say is an infallible teaching, define the exceptions of which you speakāto clear up this apparent contradiction?
Gary quoted Unam Sanctam in Post #123:
-----If Unam Sanctam didnāt define exceptions; at what point in history were these āexceptionsā defined? Please provide sources.
Iām trying to understand the infallible teachings of the Catholic Church regarding salvation, so I can answer the OPās question about whether or not I object. Iām also trying to understand how the issue of infallibility works in the Catholic Church.
Peace,
Anna
M
Mickey
Guest
How could this possibly be done? You cannot find two Roman Catholics who agree on what has been infallibly declared.
H
Harpazo
Guest
I was about to say that same exact thing.How could this possibly be done? You cannot find two Roman Catholics who agree on what has been infallibly declared.
Man, we are two for two, Mickey! In Christ,
Andrew
- Status