1
1Tim215Mommy
Guest
I’m not into re-writing history.
The verifiable fact of history that Pope Honorius was condemned as a Heretic, not a goof-up, by an Ecumenical Council accepted the entire pre-schism Church.
Where can Non-Catholics go to find an official document listing all Infallible excathedra states made by various Popes?
- Status
The verifiable fact of history that Pope Honorius was condemned as a Heretic, not a goof-up, by an Ecumenical Council accepted the entire pre-schism Church.
1
1Tim215Mommy
Guest
You are forgetting that you are speaking to a Catholic whose belief in the papacy finalizes every ecumenical council, thus confirming the validity of said council. This situation with Pope Leo II at the council of Constantinople III is not unlike that of the first Pope Leo who condemned canon 28 of the council of Chalcedon (we did not accept canon 28 until centuries later at another ecumenical council). Either way Honorius did not speak infallibly, i.e., with regard to the whole Church, otherwise that letter that Sergius (the patriarch of Constantinople) had, would have been in the hands of all the other bishops and patriarchs too. It was not.
- I think he clarified what he meant when he said “error”, i.e, it was in regards to Pope Honorius’s supposed heresy, and I say supposed because no one but no one could with absolute certainty claim Honorius meant “one will” in the manner the Monothelites were suggesting, as he was not there to defend himself. We are aware that Honorius could have very well meant by “one will”, a perfect will of compatibility between his human and divine will. This is why Pope Leo II stated that Honorius should be condemned not has a heretic (in the strict sense of the word) but because of his neglect:
- p.s. I think that after 265 popes, the only reasonably conclusion is to believe in papal infallibility.
- You think?
- 28th Canon of the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon, the official acknowledgement that the Church had always believed that Elder Rome is the 1st Among Equals simply because of it had been the former imperial political capitol of the Roman Empire…lol…are you sure you want to bring that up?
- And there have been 271 Patriarchs in Constantinople since the time of the Apostles. The Roman Papacy isn’t the longest enduring Apostolic Office, other Patriarchates pre-date it, like the Patriarchate of Antioch also founded by Peter.
L
LionHeart777
Guest
You seem to respond as though I was only offering you my own interpretation of the Scriptures, or the “current Catholic interpretation” alone. Did you miss the Pre-Schism Syrian Bishop I cited? (By the way, Christ does reinstate Peter after he publicly rejected Him, but it is not a matter of *either/or * but rather a matter of both/and.)
Here is another Pre-Schism Easterner you are probably familiar with, St. Theodore the Studite.
St. Theodore the Studite (and several other archimandrites) to Pope Paschal:
“Your Supreme Blessedness has doubtless learnt what misfortune our sins have drawn upon our Church. We have become, to speak as the Scripture, the conversation and proverb of all nations, but maybe You have not yet been fully informed by letter. This is why we humble monks and the least among the members of Christ, since our chief is a prisoner, and the first among our fathers are scattered hither and thither, have been able, thanks to your vicinity and to our common agreement in mind and words, to write you this letter, though it be very bold. Listen to us, O Apostolic Leader, set over by God to be the guide of the sheep of Christ, Doorkeeper of the heavenly kingdom, Rock of the faith, on which has been built the Catholic Church. For you are Peter, You are the successor of Peter, whose See You occupy with honour. Cruel wolves have broken into the fold of the Lord and Hell as before has risen up against it.
. . . Come to our assistance, arise and do not repulse us to the end. To You Christ our God said, ‘When thou art once converted, strengthen thy brethren.’ Now is the time and the place. Help us You who have been set by God for that purpose. Stretch out the hand as far as possible. Frighten, we beg You, the monsters of heresy with the flute of Your Divine speech. O Good Shepherd, we conjure You, give your life to your sheep…”
Source: “The Eastern Churches and the Papacy”, S. Herbert Scott, London: Sheed & Ward, 1928. Pg. 305. (Various emphasis mine.)
Doesn’t this sound like the “current Catholic interpretation” to you ?? Notice the reference to John 21 used in the way you objected to, which was also used in the same way by Theodore Abu Qurrah which I just showed you. The same way the Catholic Church interprets it today and has understood it for 2,000 years.
Also, the fact that Jerusalem and Antioch predate Rome as a Patriarchate is irrelevant in regards to who filled the office of St. Peter.
(I will pray for your client and the other party; everyone involved.)
L
LionHeart777
Guest
Just to retract and restate something I wrote in my last post,
I said:
To quote St. John Chrysostom on John 21: 15-17:
Sources:
I said:
St. Peter did not “…[forfeit] his Apostolic commission…” (Joyce) in John 21:15-17, but there is an obvious reference to St. Peter’s three-fold denial and Christ did “…give him an opportunity of repairing his fault by a triple confession…” (Calmet via Haydock.) In this passage we are seeing the fulfillment of the promise Christ made to St. Peter in Matthew 16:18-19 (Challoner via Haydock.)
To quote St. John Chrysostom on John 21: 15-17:
(as found in Joyce, emphasis mine)
Sources:
- Joyce, George. “The Pope.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 12. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1911. 17 Jul. 2013 http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm.
- Haydock’s Catholic Bible Commentary , 1859 ed. at this page:
J
josie_L
Guest
No, he wasn’t branded by the entire pre-schism church, that is why I mentioned Pope Leo II. And those bishops were guided by a piece of paper when they issued the anathema, not the Holy Spirit. I think one poster has already mentioned that anathemas and ex-communications can be reversed, i.e., an anathema is only as good as the evidence provided.
Pope Leo I never accepted nor confirmed that canon, i.e., this is on record:
The “others” he is referring to is Antioch and Alexandria which were/are Apostolic sees (all connected in some way to Peter)
Many of whom were deposed for heresy (hence the long list).
J
jmcrae
Guest
Technically, it isn’t infallible. However, it is an ordinary teaching of the Church related to the teachings on marriage, that are part and parcel of the character of the Sacrament of Marriage, that comes down to us at least from the Apostles, and therefore it is extremely unlikely that the Church will ever permit any form of birth control that divorces the sex act from its procreative function.
The only people who make a big fuss about the fact that it isn’t infallible are people who think “not infallible” means “I get to make up my own rules, in that case.” (On both sides of the fence.)
It is not necessary for every statement to be infallible. When the Pope says, "I define and declare that … " a moral teaching or a doctrinal truth is thus and so, that’s when we have an infallible statement.
J
josie_L
Guest
The notion that the Church believed or always believed that Rome held the primacy because it was the former imperial capital is wrong:
P
pablope
Guest
Hello, Schism Hater…I have some questions for you below:
ewtn.com/faith/teachings/chura4.htm
*The Magisterium or Teaching Authority of the Church
By the Magisterium we mean the teaching office of the Church. *
The Orthodox too have bishops…so do they have the authority to teach in their respective diocese or area or not?
And when they teach their diocese or area on faith and morals…can they err? Can they teach something that is false? Yes or no and why?
And a related query…do you see anything wrong with the way the Magisterium is organized in the RCC?
Paul VI reiterated the Traditional Church teaching on ABC…with this document.
That is why…for the nth time…there is the Magisterium…whether it is your local priest, your local bishop, to ask and clarify for the individual with questions and is confused.
One only remains confused if one chooses to do so and remain confused.
Let me ask you…if you were confused with something…would you choose to remain confused or would you ask someone more knowledgeable than you so that your confusion is straightened out?
Maybe you should have read the prior posts. I was responding to 1Tim’s response, where in he/she interpretated a bible passage as the individual who determine’s truth…this is the usual protestant paradigm.
Now let me ask you also…as to the need for infallibility…you, the individual…are you the authority to decide if it is needed or not?
If it is not you…then who is the authority to decide if it is needed or not?
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
No Pete I was suggesting the same as mentioned in post #74. The infallible truths we all hold to be true historically. I started with no salvation which others added to.
I felt earlier there are many speaking to 1Tim215Mommy here, I didn’t see the value of continuing when she felt uncomfortable. You all are capable.
P
pablope
Guest
K
KathleenGee
Guest
The Papacy must reflect the teachings of the Apostles and the tradition of faith passed down.
Pope Honorious did indeed teach infallibly on the two wills of Christ. I also read some of the issues you have referred to. But regarding the deposit of faith, he did not err in defining the two natures and wills of Christ, and mind, a multiple master’s student in divinity converted to Catholicism with this fact.
Pope Honorious did indeed teach infallibly on the two wills of Christ. I also read some of the issues you have referred to. But regarding the deposit of faith, he did not err in defining the two natures and wills of Christ, and mind, a multiple master’s student in divinity converted to Catholicism with this fact.
T
tdgesq
Guest
I think this is an excellent example of some of what I posted earlier. The declaration of Pope Boniface in Unam Sanctum is an infallible declaration. It isn’t just Pope Boniface that taught subjection to the Roman Pontiff is necessary for salvation, it was also declared by the Fifth Lateran Council:
Moreover, since subjection to the Roman pontiff is necessary for salvation for all Christ’s faithful, as we are taught by the testimony of both sacred scripture and the holy fathers, and as is declared by the constitution of pope Boniface VIII of happy memory, also our predecessor, which begins Unam sanctam, we therefore, with the approval of the present sacred council, for the salvation of the souls of the same faithful, for the supreme authority of the Roman pontiff and of this holy see, and for the unity and power of the church, his spouse, renew and give our approval to that constitution, but without prejudice to the declaration of pope Clement V of holy memory, which begins Meruit.
It is not just a Pope, but an ecumenical council that declared this to be a dogmatic statement. And that is my point. The Catholic Church’s deposit of faith is built upon all infallible teachings of the extraordinary Magesterium and ordinary Magesterium. Having an official list of “Pope’s only” infallible teachings or “ecumenical council only” infallible teachings or “ordinary Magesterium only” infallible teachings is a nonsense to Catholics because it’s not useful.
My initial reaction is: who cares? Assuming you’ve read what Tavard wrote and assuming that’s what he really stated, I can read the source materials myself and don’t really care what an individual theologian from 1974 thinks. I read an interview with a Jesuit theologian a few years ago who disagreed with most of the Papal prerogatives. And this proves . . . .?
Someone already treated Humanae Vitae before I got here, but take John Paul II’s Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. He does state that the Church has no authority to confer priestly ordination upon women, and that this must believed by all the faithful. He does not expressly invoke his supreme apostolic authority. Why? Because he was confirming what the ordinary Magesterium has infallibly taught since the time of Christ. It was an infallible teaching of the Church long before the Pope made his declaration. So no, it was not an exercise of the Pope’s extraordinary Magesterial authority. How do I know this?
Thus, the Reply specifies that this doctrine belongs to the deposit of the faith of the Church. It should be emphasized that the definitive and infallible nature of this teaching of the Church did not arise with the publication of the Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. In the Letter, as the Reply of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith also explains, the Roman Pontiff, having taken account of present circumstances, has confirmed the same teaching by a formal declaration, giving expression once again to quod semper, quod ubique et quod ab omnibus tenendum est, utpote ad fidei depositum pertinens. In this case, an act of the ordinary Papal Magisterium, in itself not infallible, witnesses to the infallibility of the teaching of a doctrine already possessed by the Church. Letter by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger Prefect, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
As then Bishop Ratzinger stated: “Furthermore, it should be noted that the doctrine reaffirmed by the Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis cannot but further the pursuit of full communion with the Orthodox Churches which, in fidelity to Tradition, have maintained and continue to maintain the same teaching.”
If any Apostolic Church should understand why the CC doesn’t have “official lists” of where this council or that saint infallibly declared Church Teaching, it should be the Orthodox. We have One deposit of faith, what ever it’s source.
1
1Tim215Mommy
Guest
I can’t dismiss the judgement of an Ecumenical Council that we accepted by the entire pre-schism Church.
You are correct that Pope Honorius “did not err in defining the two natures and wills of Christ” because the heresy he was condemned forever for his teaching One Will, a Single Will, of Jesus Christ - that was his error believing in & teaching of One Will of Jesus rather than Two Wills as our Holy Church teaches.
It seems like you’ve decided, perhaps along with all Catholics?, to flat-out dismiss the Ecumenical Council as wrong even though your Church (Rome) accepted that Council for centuries. I can’t just dismissed an Ecumenical Council just because it doesn’t agree with what I believe.
God bless you. I just can’t keep up this conversation with you any further. I can’t follow your logic at all, it’s so different from any line of reasoning I find reasonable. I literally am still shocked that even though I’ve quoted straight from the Sessions of the Ecumenical Council themselves that you prefer to believe literally the very exact polar opposite of the Council’s decrees, which were accepted by your very own Church for centuries. I feel like I’m :banghead:
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
You mean the letter? That wasn’t ex-cathedra/infallible. That wasn’t on the list we gave you. Heck of a warning though with all the affirmations? 
There will be no future wavering thoughts in letters.
E
eamonnroma
Guest
To be honest, notwithstanding contraception, the number of human is increasing at a great rate
E
eamonnroma
Guest
You seem to have an idea of ‘them and us’. This is not in spirit with the recent statements of the ChurchesWhere’s yours which coincides with ours till 1054?
For example this would be similar to ours. But no list, did you guys keep one?
An Eastern Orthodox bishop has expressed this doctrine as follows:
Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. All the categorical strength and point of this aphorism lies in its tautology. Outside the Church there is no salvation, because salvation is the Church" (G. Florovsky, “Sobornost: the Catholicity of the Church”, in The Church of God, p. 53). Does it therefore follow that anyone who is not visibly within the Church is necessarily damned? Of course not; still less does it follow that everyone who is visibly within the Church is necessarily saved. As Augustine wisely remarked: “How many sheep there are without, how many wolves within!” (Homilies on John, 45, 12) While there is no division between a “visible” and an “invisible Church”, yet there may be members of the Church who are not visibly such, but whose membership is known to God alone. If anyone is saved, he must in some sense be a member of the Church; in what sense, we cannot always say.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extra_Ecclesiam_nulla_salus
1Tim215Mommy are you saying no forgiving ever?
E
eamonnroma
Guest
I think that is fairly obvious that the ‘majority’ of Catholics use contraception. Use the evidence of your eyes when you are in church. How many families do you see with 7, 8 or 9 children? Why not? Because they use contraception
E
eamonnroma
Guest
There is no list (at least that I’m aware of), but you can get a good idea as a lay person what is and what isn’t using the criteria laid out in “Pastor Aeternus”. What is more, the Catholic Church recognizes three organs on infallibility:
"-the bishops dispersed throughout the world in union with the Holy See;
-ecumenical councils under the headship of the pope; and
-the pope himself separately. [when speaking ex cathedra]"
Source: Toner, Patrick. “Infallibility.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 7. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1910. 15 Jul. 2013 http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm.
So are you saying here that the early Church Councils, such as Nicea, were not infallible as they were not under the headship of the pope?
As I said, one can get a good idea by the criteria laid out by the Ecumenical Council of Vatican I, or if you want to dive in deeper one could consult, Theology manuals, Theologians, etc.
This is not the case, many (if not most) are commonly known (or should be by applying the criteria.) If some Theologians disagree on this or that, so be it. This does not mean that it is of no use (Heaven forbid!) Would you rather have a St. Peter in the Apostolic band whose faith could fail, one one who’s faith could not (St. Luke 22:32) ?
I believe that is because you have drawn the wrong conclusions based on not all of the facts.If you really want to know more, dive into some good Catholic sources (you could start with the article I cited above. Also, you could read the Vatican I document that defined it, “Pastor Aeternus”, to see the usefulness of Papal Infallibility.)
E
eamonnroma
Guest
While being interesting, and I thank you for the link. This list of dogmas does not help with the question at all.
L
LionHeart777
Guest
That quote belongs to you as I didn’t write it
You are putting words in my mouth (no pun intended) and I disagree with your analysis. Perhaps you are taking “headship of the pope” to mean that the Holy Father must physically be present? This would be a misunderstanding if so.
- Status