H
Hesychios
Guest
…
- Status
C
ComeHome2Rome
Guest
What does this mean?
C
ComeHome2Rome
Guest
Just occurred to me that we are now way off topic, and yet it’s related, should another thread be created. I vote that if another thread is needed that the person eating popcorn ought to get it started 
D
dzheremi
Guest
:ehh:Using your metaphor, the pope has totally modified Jesus’ car - it’s pimped out now with crome spinning wheels, a new hydrolic system installed, there’s even dice on the rearview mirror now.Remember, Jesus commended the dude who multipled the talents and He expected Peter to modify His car.
But also
for “the dude who multiplied the talents”. That must be in the Bill & Ted’s Excellent Adventure Version of the Bible…Either the earlier Popes who rejected the Filioque were wrong, or the later ones who accepted it were wrong.
Yes, it is quite a quandary. You see the contradiction, which is good, but the solution is apparently unacceptable to even some of your fellow Catholics, which should give you pause.
Was the incarnation a change in God? From the prayers of the Divine Liturgy of St. Basil, we see the following confession from the priest (which the laity confirm themselves in response):God doesn’t change & yet we have seen that He does change through the dogma of the Incarnation & also with the Filioque. It’s a mystery!The Trinity is a mystery too, something our finite minds can not fully grasp.
Amen. Amen. Amen. I believe, I believe, I believe and confess to the last breath, that this is the life-giving body that your only-begotten Son, our Lord, God and Saviour Jesus Christ took from our lady, the lady of us all, the holy Theotokos Saint May. He made it one with his divinity without mingling, without confusion and without alteration. He witnessed the good confession before Pontius Pilate. He gave it up for us upon the holy wood of the cross, of his own will, for us all. Truly I believe that his divinity parted not from his humanity for a single moment nor a twinkling of an eye. Given for us for salvation, remission of sins and eternal life to those who partake of him. I believe, I believe, I believe that this is so in truth. Amen. (emphasis mine)
We do not believe that the incarnation was a change in God. God, by taking on the human nature, did not become something other than He had been. To think otherwise smacks of Eutychianism and it is a heresy. Consider also the prayer recited here as part of the celebration of the Nativity. Lots of stuff in there about “blessing my (human) nature in Yourself”, the Infinite coming to us on earth, etc. Nothing about God changing, only humbling Himself for our sake, which is something both Catholics and Orthodox agree on.
Eek, indeed. Truth remains truth yesterday, today, and tomorrow. I am frankly a little shocked that any Catholic would say otherwise, but this is a major sticking point in the relations between the RCC and the Orthodox, as Hesychios has pointed out. It is not acceptable to the Church of the Councils (whether we’re talking 3 or 7). I’m not exactly filled with confidence at reading some of this stuff, I must be honest…though I will continue to try to give you the benefit of the doubt, I hope a fellow Catholic can make more sense of what you’ve written in some way that is a little less disturbing than how I’m reading you.We Catholics must adhere to the current Church teaching. If we believe as the ealier Catholics believed, that is to say that if we chose to reject one or more of the newly defined dogmas, then we have placed ourselves outside of our own Church.
T
Trebor135
Guest
Why should we have to believe something not a part of the deposit of faith? That a doctrine has been added to the Christian truth handed down from generation to generation should send up a red flag for all who believe in the equal importance of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.
So, in the future, could the pope theoretically reject the filioque again? Would you subscribe to the “new truth” that he had promulgated?
I may not select the most perfect words to describe stuff, but I do my best.
I fully believe Jesus is true to his words to St. Peter that ANYTHING he looses on earth will be loosed in heaven and ANYTHING he binds on earth will be bound in heaven. The popes have now “bound” that original ANYTHING to just Faith and Morals. To know what truth is, the question of Pilate, we must listen to the current pope, not past popes unless they happen to agree with the current because Jesus can not be made into a liar.
The definition of binding and loosing that you ascribe to the role of the pope is, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia(!), a recent development in itself:The pope is infallible, but I am not. If I’m wrong, show me.
Continued in next post.
T
Trebor135
Guest
By the Scholastic theologians the precise significance of the term “power of the keys”] was closely analysed.
(1) The view which is now universally accepted is exposed at length by Suárez (De Poenit., disp. xvi). According to him, the phrase as employed by Christ in His promise to St. Peter denotes the gift of ecclesiastical authority in its widest scope. This authority was to be in a sense peculiar to St. Peter and his successors in the chief pastorate; for they alone were to possess it in its fullness. But it was to be exercised in due measure by the other members of the Divinely instituted hierarchy according to their several degrees. Thus understood, the potestas clavium includes
(2) The meaning attached to the term by the older Scholastics was, however, different from this. They followed the patristic tradition, and confined its significance to the judicial authority exercised in the Sacrament of Penance. The power of the keys, St. Thomas tells us (Summa Theologica Supp:17:2, ad 1um), is a necessary consequence of the sacerdotal character. It is, in fact, identical in essence with the power to consecrate and to offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. The one sacerdotal gift is applied to different ends in the different sacraments. Such, too, appears to be the teaching of Pope John XXII in a well-known passage dealing with this subject (Extravag., tit. xiv, De verborum signif., c. v, Quia quorundam). The definition, “Clavis est specialis potestas ligandi et solvendi qua judex ecclesiasticus dignos recipere et indignos excludere debet a regno” (The keys are a special power of binding and loosing by which the ecclesiastical judge should receive the worthy [into the kingdom of heaven] and exclude the unworthy therefrom), generally accepted in the Scholastic period (Pet. Lomb., “Sent.”, IV, dist. xviii; John XXII, loc. cit.; St. Thomas, loc. cit.), might seem indeed to include jurisdiction in the external as well as in the internal forum. But in point of fact it was not so understood. The distinction between the clavis potentioe and the clavis scientioe was employed here. By the clavis scientioe was understood the priestly authority to interrogate the penitent and thus obtain cognizance of the facts of the case; by the clavis potentioe, the authority to grant or refuse absolution.
The view just exposed is inadmissible as an interpretation of Christ’s words. For it is plain that He desired to confer by them some special prerogative on Peter, while, according to this interpretation, the potestas clavium is common to all priests.
(3) Hence there were not wanting theologians who narrowly restricted the scope of the gift, and asserted that it denoted the special prerogatives appertaining to St. Peter and his successors, and these alone. Thus Cardinal Cajetan (Opusc., I, tract. iii, De Rom. Pont., c. v) held that while the power of binding and loosing belonged to all priests, the power of the keys — authority to open and shut — was proper to the supreme pontiff; and that this expression signified his authority to rule the Church, to define dogma, to legislate, and to dispense from laws. A similar opinion would seem to have been held by the Franciscans whose views are rejected by John XXII (loc. cit.). They contended that the popes held a clavis scientioe and a clavis potentioe; and that, though in the case of the clavis potentioe a decision arrived at might be reversed be a subsequent act, no reversal was possible where the clavis scientioe had been employed.
(4) Macedo in his treatise “De Clavibus Petri” (Rome, 1660), attributes to certain theologians and canonists the opinion that the keys denote the supreme authority in the civil and ecclesiastical spheres, and that Christ conferred upon the pope a direct supremacy over both orders. We have, however, been unable to verify this statement. Indeed the writers who attributed to the pope an indirect authority only, in regard to civil governments, found an argument for their views in this very passage. They pointed out that it was the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and not of the kingdoms of this earth, which Christ bestowed upon His vicar.
–Joyce, G. (1910). Power of the Keys. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved July 21, 2012 from New Advent: newadvent.org/cathen/08631b.htm
(1) The view which is now universally accepted is exposed at length by Suárez (De Poenit., disp. xvi). According to him, the phrase as employed by Christ in His promise to St. Peter denotes the gift of ecclesiastical authority in its widest scope. This authority was to be in a sense peculiar to St. Peter and his successors in the chief pastorate; for they alone were to possess it in its fullness. But it was to be exercised in due measure by the other members of the Divinely instituted hierarchy according to their several degrees. Thus understood, the potestas clavium includes
- the power of order, namely power exercised in regard to sacrifice and sacrament,
- the power of jurisdiction, and
- the power to define in questions of faith and morals.
(2) The meaning attached to the term by the older Scholastics was, however, different from this. They followed the patristic tradition, and confined its significance to the judicial authority exercised in the Sacrament of Penance. The power of the keys, St. Thomas tells us (Summa Theologica Supp:17:2, ad 1um), is a necessary consequence of the sacerdotal character. It is, in fact, identical in essence with the power to consecrate and to offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. The one sacerdotal gift is applied to different ends in the different sacraments. Such, too, appears to be the teaching of Pope John XXII in a well-known passage dealing with this subject (Extravag., tit. xiv, De verborum signif., c. v, Quia quorundam). The definition, “Clavis est specialis potestas ligandi et solvendi qua judex ecclesiasticus dignos recipere et indignos excludere debet a regno” (The keys are a special power of binding and loosing by which the ecclesiastical judge should receive the worthy [into the kingdom of heaven] and exclude the unworthy therefrom), generally accepted in the Scholastic period (Pet. Lomb., “Sent.”, IV, dist. xviii; John XXII, loc. cit.; St. Thomas, loc. cit.), might seem indeed to include jurisdiction in the external as well as in the internal forum. But in point of fact it was not so understood. The distinction between the clavis potentioe and the clavis scientioe was employed here. By the clavis scientioe was understood the priestly authority to interrogate the penitent and thus obtain cognizance of the facts of the case; by the clavis potentioe, the authority to grant or refuse absolution.
The view just exposed is inadmissible as an interpretation of Christ’s words. For it is plain that He desired to confer by them some special prerogative on Peter, while, according to this interpretation, the potestas clavium is common to all priests.
(3) Hence there were not wanting theologians who narrowly restricted the scope of the gift, and asserted that it denoted the special prerogatives appertaining to St. Peter and his successors, and these alone. Thus Cardinal Cajetan (Opusc., I, tract. iii, De Rom. Pont., c. v) held that while the power of binding and loosing belonged to all priests, the power of the keys — authority to open and shut — was proper to the supreme pontiff; and that this expression signified his authority to rule the Church, to define dogma, to legislate, and to dispense from laws. A similar opinion would seem to have been held by the Franciscans whose views are rejected by John XXII (loc. cit.). They contended that the popes held a clavis scientioe and a clavis potentioe; and that, though in the case of the clavis potentioe a decision arrived at might be reversed be a subsequent act, no reversal was possible where the clavis scientioe had been employed.
(4) Macedo in his treatise “De Clavibus Petri” (Rome, 1660), attributes to certain theologians and canonists the opinion that the keys denote the supreme authority in the civil and ecclesiastical spheres, and that Christ conferred upon the pope a direct supremacy over both orders. We have, however, been unable to verify this statement. Indeed the writers who attributed to the pope an indirect authority only, in regard to civil governments, found an argument for their views in this very passage. They pointed out that it was the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and not of the kingdoms of this earth, which Christ bestowed upon His vicar.
–Joyce, G. (1910). Power of the Keys. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved July 21, 2012 from New Advent: newadvent.org/cathen/08631b.htm
J
jam070406
Guest
This post is disturbing.The pope has always traditionally worn a crown, the papal crown, which signifies he does rule our Church. In past times the pope ruled both secularly & spiritually and but now his secular authority only remains in the Vatican City and still the rest of the universe spiritually. The pope is not Jesus, but rules in His place as Jesus appointed the pope to. Just as the Pharaoh had appoint Joseph to rule over Egypt.
Using your metaphor, the pope has totally modified Jesus’ car - it’s pimped out now with crome spinning wheels, a new hydrolic system installed, there’s even dice on the rearview mirror now.
If the pope didn’t have the authority to override existing truth, then how is the replacement of NO FILIOQUE with FILIOQUE explained? How do the very distinct differences about our own God jive, if we don’t accept that the popes have the authority to override the truth with the new and distinct truth which is then the new & current truth? Both were taught by popes but in different centuries. We are bound the follow the current pope, right?
God doesn’t change & yet we have seen that He does change through the dogma of the Incarnation & also with the Filioque. It’s a mystery!
We Catholics must adhere to the current Church teaching. If we believe as the ealier Catholics believed, that is to say that if we chose to reject one or more of the newly defined dogmas, then we have placed ourselves outside of our own Church.
T
TrueLight
Guest
My brother (or sister)… are you a new Catholic?I may not select the most perfect words to describe stuff, but I do my best.
T
ThatOneGuy92
Guest
We both agree Truth is Truth. Therefore, how can one believe that which was (as you say) not within the deposit of Faith? What of the commands in the Epistles, then? “Hold fast to what has been handed down to you, by word or mouth”; “… contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.”
You’ll have to pardon me, but I simply do not see how this matches with believing the teachings of a current pontiff on something that past pontiffs not only did not teach, but rejected. Something isn’t lining up here.
Indeed. As do we all, myself included.I may not select the most perfect words to describe stuff, but I do my best.
I’m quite coming around to the apophatic way of doing things- that is, to say what something is not. Especially when dealing with divine mysteries, this seems a safer and prudent route. I digress.
All I can say is that, based off the context of the passage, Jesus was granting to Peter (either first, or as a reaffirmation, depending on the chronology) the power to bind and loose sins- e.g., the right to grant Absolution to a penitent who has confessed their sins. It definitely has nothing to do with the ability to bind and loose reality; only God can do such things, and only then on creation, since God is immutable and does not change.I fully believe Jesus is true to his words to St. Peter that ANYTHING he looses on earth will be loosed in heaven and ANYTHING he binds on earth will be bound in heaven. The popes have now “bound” that original ANYTHING to just Faith and Morals. To know what truth is, the question of Pilate, we must listen to the current pope, not past popes unless they happen to agree with the current because Jesus can not be made into a liar.
Either Jesus gave the popes the power to bind & loose in heaven & earth or He didn’t. I’m Catholic and I believe He did. There is no limit to what the Pope can do and affect on heaven or on earth when it comes to any matter either Faith & Morals. Belief about Who God is is a matter of Faith and if the Trinity was not including filioque (the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father only), but now He is (the Holy Spirit now proceeds from both the Father and the Son) than God did change yet He can’t change - a complete mystery. _ a mystery like the Trinity which is a matter of faith to be accepted.
Au contraire, the burden of proof is upon you. I make no claims about the Pope exercising infallibility. However that, my friend, is for another thread methinks.The pope is infallible, but I am not. If I’m wrong, show me.
C
ComeHome2Rome
Guest
:ehh:
But also
my inner CA surfer-girl is showing 
That’s not possible for a pope to be wrong in matters of faith or morals. Both popes have to be right.I have received some negative feedback and I’m surprised about that as we have to be able to reconcile some difficult positions. Someone said something like a thousand difficulties do not add up to a single doubt.
I’d like someone to show how else these issues can be reconciled.
God was once only God & with the incarnation God became both God and change. I’d like to understand how is that not a change?
I see it as something that is true like the Trinity but that can not be fully explained /understood until we get to heaven.
I hope another Catholic can explain it better, in a different way, that would be great.
I don’t want to disturb anyone.
C
ComeHome2Rome
Guest
No, almost 20 yrs now. I’m lucky to be in a community that is very faithful to the pope. You?
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
Wow. I am dumbfounded. For all the wrong reasons. There is so much error in this post that I think you need to talk to a pretty good priest who can instruct you what the true teachings of the Catholic Church are.
The Pope did not rule secularly in the past. At least not from the first few centuries of the Church. At some point in the early Second Millennium the Pope degreed that temporal rulers are subject to him. But he was never a ruler of his own until much later with the Papal States.
The crown symbolizes the kingdom of God on earth, which is in the Church. The bishop if the visible sign of the Church. Every bishop wears a crown. The mitres of Latin bishops are fashioned to be crowns. Eastern bishops wear mitres that actually looks like a crown:
The Pope did not rule secularly in the past. At least not from the first few centuries of the Church. At some point in the early Second Millennium the Pope degreed that temporal rulers are subject to him. But he was never a ruler of his own until much later with the Papal States.
The “dude” with multiple talents (talents by the way are currency, not abilities) multiplied the talents (made more money), he didn’t come back to the king with something else of value like land, diamonds, gold or anything else.Using your metaphor, the pope has totally modified Jesus’ car - it’s pimped out now with crome spinning wheels, a new hydrolic system installed, there’s even dice on the rearview mirror now.
Have you even done any research yourself?
If our truth today is different from the truth in early centuries, then what we have today is not the truth. As St. Paul said, a false teacher is one who teaches a Jesus other than the Jesus they taught. If we change the teachings of the Apostles, then we are heretics. The Pope is a successor to the Apostles, not a successor to Christ.
God does not change, and neither the truth of Christ. Christ taught something in the first century and He said that is the way to salvation. If we change it, how can it be the same way? The path is narrow, to deviate one bit is to be off the path. If we changed what is taught, then we are off the path.God doesn’t change & yet we have seen that He does change through the dogma of the Incarnation & also with the Filioque. It’s a mystery!
If we do not believe as the earlier Catholics believe, then we believe a different faith. It means we made stuff up. It means we are in heresy. It means we are going to hell. It is simple as that.We Catholics must adhere to the current Church teaching. If we believe as the ealier Catholics believed, that is to say that if we chose to reject one or more of the newly defined dogmas, then we have placed ourselves outside of our own Church.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
Wow.
I seriously, with all sincerity and love and concern, advice you to seek a very good theologian and teach you what the Catholic Church actually teaches.
I am not trying to troll here or be a meanie, but everything you just posted is outright heresy. Even the most Papal Supremacist would never claim the Pope can change Church teaching.
D
dzheremi
Guest
As it says in the prayers I reproduced in my previous post, the divinity of our Lord was not mingled, mixed, or altered by the taking up of the human nature. Rather, it was our nature that was elevated by His sanctification of it – “…and took the form of a servant, and blessed my nature in Yourself”, etc.
Fair enough.
T
TrueLight
Guest
I am less than a year old in the faith. See my siggy.
Sometimes, based on the parishes you attend and the sort of catechesis you receive, it is very easy to misunderstand Church teaching. I do not mean this in any derogatory way.
I find a good online source to be My Catholic Faith.
Sources like that are very helpful to me, especially when it comes to nuances between Protestant and Catholic doctrine. The glaring differences are easy, but when you have similar teaching, it is very easy to confuse the two.
So even someone who has been Catholic for 40 years can need clarification.
We are always learning.
C
ComeHome2Rome
Guest
Soon after my conversion I attended and learned in person from Fr. John Corapi when he began teaching from the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I know he’s recently gone his own way, but he was a pillar in the mid-1990s.
History is also very important and has to be reconciled with current Church teachings. How is it that popes of prior times taught against the filioque and current popes teach the filioque in light of our Church’s teaching that popes can not error in matters of faith?
I’m saying that they all are correct at the time.
Heresy. Really? Rather than throwing around the H word, if you have a better explanation, I’m all ears. I really want to hear it
I believe that only with the Pope can the fulness of Truth be found.
C
ComeHome2Rome
Guest
You agree with me that in the incarnation God became sometime He had not previously been, Human.
I call that a change. But also fully understand & agree that God can not change. It’s a mystery.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
Well, HERESY as defined is any teaching that is not consistent with what the Apostles taught. So for a Pope to teach a new “truth” is not only heretic in itself, what he teaches is heresy by its very definition.Soon after my conversion I attended and learned in person from Fr. John Corapi when he began teaching from the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I know he’s recently gone his own way, but he was a pillar in the mid-1990s.
History is also very important and has to be reconciled with current Church teachings. How is it that popes of prior times taught against the filioque and current popes teach the filioque in light of our Church’s teaching that popes can not error in matters of faith?
I’m saying that they all are correct at the time.
Heresy. Really? Rather than throwing around the H word, if you have a better explanation, I’m all ears. I really want to hear it
Sad. Because the fullness of truth is Christ. Not the Pope.
C
ComeHome2Rome
Guest
I said “with” not “in”. Big difference.
Christ is Truth and it is He who established the Papacy. It is only in union WITH the Papacy that the fulness of Truth, Jesus, can be found.
N
Nine_Two
Guest
This is exactly my problem with infallibility of the pope. This is a very real issue if you believe in it.
- Status