P
PRmerger
Guest
Yet, curiously, with all this alleged “power” it hasn’t been able to change the minds of Catholics on the truths of birth control, the Eucharist, divorce and re-marriage?
- Status
L
Leo_The_Great
Guest
I am not saying Rome fell into Heresy, but here’s how the papacy viewed itself by the 11th-12th century :
The Dictatus Papae was included in Pope’s register in the year 1075. Some argue that it was written by Pope Gregory VII (r. 1073-1085) himself, others argues that it had a much later different origin. In 1087 Cardinal Deusdedit published a collection of the laws of the Church which he drew from any sources. The Dictatus agrees so clearly and closely with this collection that some have argued the Dictatus must have been based on it; and so must be of a later date of compilation than 1087. There is little doubt that the principals below do express the pope’s principals.
The Dictates of the Pope
A couple of these are ridiculous…
The Dictatus Papae was included in Pope’s register in the year 1075. Some argue that it was written by Pope Gregory VII (r. 1073-1085) himself, others argues that it had a much later different origin. In 1087 Cardinal Deusdedit published a collection of the laws of the Church which he drew from any sources. The Dictatus agrees so clearly and closely with this collection that some have argued the Dictatus must have been based on it; and so must be of a later date of compilation than 1087. There is little doubt that the principals below do express the pope’s principals.
The Dictates of the Pope
- That the Roman church was founded by God alone.
- That the Roman pontiff alone can with right be called universal.
- That he alone can depose or reinstate bishops.
- That, in a council his legate, even if a lower grade, is above all bishops, and can pass sentence of deposition against them.
- That the pope may depose the absent.
- That, among other things, we ought not to remain in the same house with those excommunicated by him.
- That for him alone is it lawful, according to the needs of the time, to make new laws, to assemble together new congregations, to make an abbey of a canonry; and, on the other hand, to divide a rich bishopric and unite the poor ones.
** 8. That he alone may use the imperial insignia. - That of the pope alone all princes shall kiss the feet.**
** 10. That his name alone shall be spoken in the churches. - That this is the only name in the world.**
- That it may be permitted to him to depose emperors.
- That he may be permitted to transfer bishops if need be.
- That he has power to ordain a clerk of any church he may wish.
- That he who is ordained by him may preside over another church, but may not hold a subordinate position; and that such a one may not receive a higher grade from any bishop.
** 16. That no synod shall be called a general one without his order.** - That no chapter and no book shall be considered canonical without his authority.
- That a sentence passed by him may be retracted by no one; and that he himself, alone of all, may retract it.
- That he himself may be judged by no one.
- That no one shall dare to condemn one who appeals to the apostolic chair.
- That to the latter should be referred the more important cases of every church.
- That the Roman church has never erred; nor will it err to all eternity, the Scripture bearing witness.
- That the Roman pontiff, if he have been canonically ordained, is undoubtedly made a saint by the merits of St. Peter; St. Ennodius, bishop of Pavia, bearing witness, and many holy fathers agreeing with him. As is contained in the decrees of St. Symmachus the pope.
- That, by his command and consent, it may be lawful for subordinates to bring accusations.
- That he may depose and reinstate bishops without assembling a synod.
- That he who is not at peace with the Roman church shall not be considered catholic.
- That he may absolve subjects from their fealty to wicked men.
A couple of these are ridiculous…
G
GKC
Guest
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
Thank you, PR. I appreciate it. God bless you.
I apologize, gurney. No insult intended.
I was just saying that *my *church is *your *church, at that time period.
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
G
guanophore
Guest
I thought I made it clear they are rhetorical questions? Their purpose is to direct the discussion. I can see why you would be tired. You put a lot of effort in here to day. God bless you my brother, and I will be in prayer about your employment.
G
guanophore
Guest
More than a couple I would say! Was this foisted on the East? If so, it explains a lot.
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
Blessings to you to, guanophore. Enjoy Mass tomorrow…
L
Leo_The_Great
Guest
Well, within a hundred years In 1136, a Catholic bishop, Anselm of Havelberg, visited Constantinople on a diplomatic mission, and while there engaged in a public debate with the Orthodox archbishop of Nicomedia, Nicetas. Anselm put forth the traditional claims for Roman supremacy: Peter founded the church at Rome, and Jesus gave the keys of the kingdom to Peter.
Nicetas replied that the Holy Spirit did not descend on Peter alone at Pentecost but on all the apostles. All Christians had the right to be consulted about matters of faith and practice. One speech in particular sums up well the Orthodox views of the matter:
This is a perfect example of the Orthodox fear of the Papacy’s arbitrariness…
But it is a misunderstanding, there are definite limits on the Papacy’s prerogatives that need to be further explicated…
But on the other Hand, here is St. Maximus the Confessor:
"If the Roman see recognizes Pyrrhus to be not only a reprobate but a heretic, it is certainly plain that everyone who anathematizes those who have rejected Pyrrhus, anathematizes the see of Rome that is, he anathematizes the Catholic Church. I need hardly add that he excommunicates himself also, if indeed he be in communion with the Roman see and the Church of God… It is not right that one who has been condemned and cast out by the Apostolic see of the city of Rome for his wrong opinions should be named with any kind of honour, until he be received by her, having returned to her — nay, to our Lord — by a pious confession and orthodox faith, by which he can receive holiness and the title of holy… Let him hasten before all things to satisfy the Roman see, for if it is satisfied all will agree in calling him pious and orthodox. For he only speaks in vain who thinks he ought to persuade or entrap persons like myself, and does not satisfy and implore the blessed pope of the most holy Church of the Romans, that is, the Apostolic see, which from the incarnate Son of God Himself, and also by all holy synods, according to the holy canons and definitions, has received universal and supreme dominion, authority and power of binding and loosing over all the holy Churches of God which are in the whole world — for with it the Word who is above the celestial powers binds and looses in heaven also. For if he thinks he must satisfy others, and fails to implore the most blessed Roman pope, he is acting like a man who, when accused of murder or some other crime, does not hasten to prove his innocence to the judge appointed by the law, but only uselessly and without profit does his best to demonstrate his innocence to private individuals, who have no power to acquit him. "
What about THAT?
Nicetas replied that the Holy Spirit did not descend on Peter alone at Pentecost but on all the apostles. All Christians had the right to be consulted about matters of faith and practice. One speech in particular sums up well the Orthodox views of the matter:
Code:
"We do not deny to the Roman Church **the primacy** amongst the five sister patriarchates; and we recognize her right to the most honorable seat at an ecumenical council. But she has separated herself from us by her own deeds, when through pride she assumed a monarchy **which does not belong to her office.**
How shall we accept decrees from her that have been issued without consulting us and even without our knowledge? ***If the Roman Pontiff, seated on the lofty throne of his glory, wishes to thunder at us and, so to speak, hurl his mandates at us from on high; and if he wishes to judge us and even to rule us and our churches, not by consulting with us, but at his own arbitrary pleasure; then what kind of brotherhood, or even what kind of parenthood can this be? We would be the slaves, not the sons, of such a church. And the Roman seat would not be the pious mother of sons but a hard and imperious mistress of slaves.***"But it is a misunderstanding, there are definite limits on the Papacy’s prerogatives that need to be further explicated…
But on the other Hand, here is St. Maximus the Confessor:
"If the Roman see recognizes Pyrrhus to be not only a reprobate but a heretic, it is certainly plain that everyone who anathematizes those who have rejected Pyrrhus, anathematizes the see of Rome that is, he anathematizes the Catholic Church. I need hardly add that he excommunicates himself also, if indeed he be in communion with the Roman see and the Church of God… It is not right that one who has been condemned and cast out by the Apostolic see of the city of Rome for his wrong opinions should be named with any kind of honour, until he be received by her, having returned to her — nay, to our Lord — by a pious confession and orthodox faith, by which he can receive holiness and the title of holy… Let him hasten before all things to satisfy the Roman see, for if it is satisfied all will agree in calling him pious and orthodox. For he only speaks in vain who thinks he ought to persuade or entrap persons like myself, and does not satisfy and implore the blessed pope of the most holy Church of the Romans, that is, the Apostolic see, which from the incarnate Son of God Himself, and also by all holy synods, according to the holy canons and definitions, has received universal and supreme dominion, authority and power of binding and loosing over all the holy Churches of God which are in the whole world — for with it the Word who is above the celestial powers binds and looses in heaven also. For if he thinks he must satisfy others, and fails to implore the most blessed Roman pope, he is acting like a man who, when accused of murder or some other crime, does not hasten to prove his innocence to the judge appointed by the law, but only uselessly and without profit does his best to demonstrate his innocence to private individuals, who have no power to acquit him. "
What about THAT?
G
guanophore
Guest
Fortunately Benedict is not a pompous man.
I think one of the most damaging events to the church was when the Bishop of Rome accepted secular authority in the West and the title of Pontiff from the emperor. That was the turn in the road that precipitated the Schism, and the Reformation.
B
Bluegoat
Guest
You don’t mean this the way it looks I hope.
G
guanophore
Guest
I dunno. How does it look?
You don’t mean this the way it looks I hope.
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
It looks to me like you’re saying the Catholic Church is like a castle protecting the adherent and when you step outside the castle you get eaten by wolves. But that’s just my take LOL 
G
guanophore
Guest
Ok. This is what the Apostles taught, and it has been held in Sacred Tradition. We are only protected when we are in the bosom of the Church. That is why, when someone is separated from the Church, they are considered to be “delivered to Satan” who is the 'god of this world".It looks to me like you’re saying the Catholic Church is like a castle protecting the adherent and when you step outside the castle you get eaten by wolves. But that’s just my take LOL
C
Cranmer2010
Guest
Do you really believe this??
G
guanophore
Guest
I believe this is the Apostolic Teaching. Otherwise, what do you make of their practice of delivering someone over in the hopes they will come to their senses, and repent, so their soul may be saved?
B
brb3
Guest
Isn’t this essentially what Christ taught his disciples ? Isn’t Judas Exhibit A ?It looks to me like you’re saying the Catholic Church is like a castle protecting the adherent and when you step outside the castle you get eaten by wolves. But that’s just my take LOL
C
Cranmer2010
Guest
I believe it is Apostolic Teaching as well, but certainly not in the same institutional regard as you do.
G
guanophore
Guest
Have you read the early church fathers? do you define 'church" differently than they?
B
Bluegoat
Guest
You said:
**
"Infallibility is a gift that only protects those who adhere to the Teaching of the Apostles. When one chooses to depart from it, then one is no longer protected by it. "**
In the context of the larger discussion, it sounds like you are saying the Pope is only speaking infallibly when he is correct. When he is incorrect, he is no longer speaking as Pope, but only as an individual.
THis does actually seem to be what you have been saying, from a practical perspective. If history shows what the Pope decrees to be correct, than it is part of Tradition. If not, it isn’t.
So if a Pope willfully embraces a hetrodox idea, he can no longer speak in an authoritative fashion. Anything he says, in no matter what form, holds no force, because it contradicts tradition.
But that is essentially the same as what an Orthodox or classical Anglican might say, and pretty much makes Catholic claims about the necessity for that strong central authority of the Pope useless.
Not to mention, in all these discussions an enormous burden seems to be on the average Catholic - who may be living in a tribe in the middle of Mongolia for all we know - to be able to determine when the Pope has departed from Tradition, or when he is defining Tradition! So it seems here that the situation is worse than the Orthodox one, the individual is put in much the same position as any Protestant finds himself!:
- Status