Jump to content
dairygirl4u2c

Catholic Church's Claims Are Weak In Early History, Regarding Papa

Recommended Posts

Apotheoun

Me thinks Sacred Tradition is more than sound bites from the Church Fathers.

Agreed. Sacred Tradition is the life of faith experienced in the Church and passed on from generation to generation unaltered. Quotations from the Church Fathers merely attest to that reality. Interestingly, Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox read the same texts (both the scriptural texts and the writings of the Church Fathers), but they understand the texts differently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
linate

one issue that makes the CC claim look weak. even after the schism, there were vague enough references to papal authjority. where the clearer proof? the "cannot make error" proof?

that goes for early history but later as well, which high lights the weakness of CC claims.

i do know of one quote relatively early that acts like error doesn't come from the roman church, but it's too isolated to take too seriously,

 

as an example. schism was 1100 ish. the 4th latern council was 1200 ish. yet here is what was said regarding papal authority

 

"after the Roman church, which through the Lord's disposition has a primacy of ordinary power over all other churches inasmuch as it is the mother and mistress of all Christ's faithful, the church of Constantinople shall have the first place, the church of Alexandria the second place, the church of Antioch the third place, and the church of Jerusalem the fourth place, each maintaining its own rank. Thus after their pontiffs have received from the Roman pontiff the pallium, which is the sign of the fullness of the pontifical office, and have taken an oath of fidelity and obedience to him they may lawfully confer the pallium on their own suffragans, receiving from them for themselves canonical profession and for the Roman church the promise of obedience. They may have a standard of the Lord's cross carried before them anywhere except in the city of Rome or wherever there is present the supreme pontiff or his legate wearing the insignia of the apostolic dignity. In all the provinces subject to their jurisdiction let appeal be made to them, when it is necessary, except for appeals made to the apostolic see, to which all must humbly defer."

 

notice they only talk about "ordinary power" and vows of "obedience" and "humbly defer" and the rankings of the other councils. eastern orthodox may not like this ranking talk when they are thinking rome is "first amoung equals". but here, even after orthodox splits, all we have merelty vows of obedie3nce, which even orthodox take, "defer"ing, which orthodox do, ranking others, which deligitimaizings the authority of rome somewhat of they are only deferred to unless rome is trumping it with deference. plus "ordinary power" sounds weak, like orthodox but with a little mroe umpf based on the rest of the quote. where's the stronger language that the church of rome cannot make error?

just beause you give obedience as a priest does a bishop even in the CC, or up the heirarchy in the orthodox, doesn't mean the highestperson is infallible. it's more akin to a father son relationship where deference is given etc. the fact they use the word "defer" is lethal to teh CC claim, as well as the lack of stronger proof that the RCC cannot make error.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
havok579257

one issue that makes the CC claim look weak. even after the schism, there were vague enough references to papal authjority. where the clearer proof? the "cannot make error" proof?

that goes for early history but later as well, which high lights the weakness of CC claims.

i do know of one quote relatively early that acts like error doesn't come from the roman church, but it's too isolated to take too seriously,

 

as an example. schism was 1100 ish. the 4th latern council was 1200 ish. yet here is what was said regarding papal authority

 

"after the Roman church, which through the Lord's disposition has a primacy of ordinary power over all other churches inasmuch as it is the mother and mistress of all Christ's faithful, the church of Constantinople shall have the first place, the church of Alexandria the second place, the church of Antioch the third place, and the church of Jerusalem the fourth place, each maintaining its own rank. Thus after their pontiffs have received from the Roman pontiff the pallium, which is the sign of the fullness of the pontifical office, and have taken an oath of fidelity and obedience to him they may lawfully confer the pallium on their own suffragans, receiving from them for themselves canonical profession and for the Roman church the promise of obedience. They may have a standard of the Lord's cross carried before them anywhere except in the city of Rome or wherever there is present the supreme pontiff or his legate wearing the insignia of the apostolic dignity. In all the provinces subject to their jurisdiction let appeal be made to them, when it is necessary, except for appeals made to the apostolic see, to which all must humbly defer."

 

notice they only talk about "ordinary power" and vows of "obedience" and "humbly defer" and the rankings of the other councils. eastern orthodox may not like this ranking talk when they are thinking rome is "first amoung equals". but here, even after orthodox splits, all we have merelty vows of obedie3nce, which even orthodox take, "defer"ing, which orthodox do, ranking others, which deligitimaizings the authority of rome somewhat of they are only deferred to unless rome is trumping it with deference. plus "ordinary power" sounds weak, like orthodox but with a little mroe umpf based on the rest of the quote. where's the stronger language that the church of rome cannot make error?

just beause you give obedience as a priest does a bishop even in the CC, or up the heirarchy in the orthodox, doesn't mean the highestperson is infallible. it's more akin to a father son relationship where deference is given etc. the fact they use the word "defer" is lethal to teh CC claim, as well as the lack of stronger proof that the Catholic Church cannot make error.

 

 

and your theory is what exactly?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tomthetwin

As a Catholic I hold to the double-edged, truism of faith and tradition. Faith tells me that Jesus is true God, and true man. In faith, and the gift of the Holy Spirit, I hold to the tradition that Our Father works through His creation. Oh, an aside here is now appropriate. As a student of history, and Western Culture, I would like any brother or sister to show me an example of where a man, after being  ordained Pope, is credited with the destruction, or elimination, of the Church founded by Word of the Father made flesh; Jesus of Nazareth. Yes, we have had weak, sinful, and evil popes, bishops/cardinals, and consecrated men and women within this House. Where are they now? I don't know; nor do I feel the need to speculate, or comment, on the nature of their relationship with The Triune God. But, as I share these thoughts, I still see a Church that is alive offering an invitation to all.  Peace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dairygirl4u2c

here are a couple more points of contention with early church claims regarding the papacy

 

 

The Roman Pope never presided over any of the councils recognized as ecumenical by Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox, however. They recognize seven in total, and at none of those seven did the Roman Bishop even attend, let alone preside. He instead sent legates to act in his place. In all of those councils, Western bishops in general were an extreme minority; sometimes not even present at all. The seven, and the presiding bishop of each one of them, are as follows:

1. Council of Nicaea (325 AD) - Hosius of Cordoba and Emperor Constantine - only five Western bishops in attendance (out of 318).

2. Council of Constantinople (381 AD) - Timothy of Alexandria, Meletius of Antioch, Gregory Nazianzus, and Nectarius of Constantinople - zero Western bishops present.

3, Council of Ephesus (431 AD) - Cyril of Alexandria - The two Papal legates (and one priest sent as Pope Celestine's personal representative) arrived late, and were anyway instructed by Celestine not to participate in the discussions, only to offer judgment on them.

4. Council of Chalcedon (451 AD) - A board of government officials and senators, led by the patrician Anatolius - The Western church was represented by legates Bishop Paschasnius of Lilybaeum, Bishop Julian of Cos, and the priests Boniface and Basil. 370 total bishops attended.

5. Constantinople II (553 AD) - Eutychius of Constantinople - 152 bishops attended, 16 of which were Western.

6. Constantinople III (680 AD) - Patriarch George I of Constantinople - c. 300 bishops in attendance, if added up over all the sessions (no info on how many were Western, but the Pope had sent a few legates and priests, as was usual by this time)

7. Nicaea II (787 AD) - Patriarch Tarasios of Constantinople - 350 (the Western Church was represented by two Papal legates)

 

when you look up say constantinople for example, that had no papal representation....

why do you suppose the catholic encyclopedia says it was 'under' damasus? if no westerner was there? was he considered the head even though none were present? and reading more about that council at the catholic encyc, it reads as if the catholics only approve of it to the extent that their pope did or does.

are catholics trying to take retroactive credit for it?

what gives with all this?

reading more on wikipedia, it says that the roman church didn't even acknowledge constatntinople until like a hundred an fifty years after it was done.

it makes yu wonder about that catholic encylo article.

so as far as i can see, given things like constantinople..... the eastern orthodox wouldn't need to be 'under' the roman bishop even in holding councils. they just thought he was first among equals.

i had been under the impression that there could be 'unity' between the east and the west, at least if the east did not have to be obligated under the roman bishop. but considering all this new information, one might wonder what a real 'unity' would even look like. it doesn't sound like rome would be the center of it, much to rome's dismay.

 

II. FIRST COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE
Year: 381
Summary: The First General Council of Constantinople, under Pope Damasus and the Emperor Theodosius I, was attended by 150 bishops. It was directed against the followers of Macedonius, who impugned the Divinity of the Holy Ghost. To the above-mentioned Nicene Creed it added the clauses referring to the Holy Ghost (qui simul adoratur) and all that follows to the end.
Further Reading: www.newadvent.org/cathen/04308a.htm

"According to Photius (Mansi, III, 596) Pope Damasus approved it, but if any part of the council were approved by this pope it could have been only the aforesaid creed. In the latter half of the fifth century the successors of Leo the Great are silent as to this council. Its mention in the so-called "Decretum Gelasii", towards the end of the fifth century, is not original but a later insertion in that text (Hefele). Gregory the Great, following the example of Vigilius and Pelagius II, recognized it as one of the four general councils, but only in its dogmatic utterances (P.G., LXXVII, 468, 893).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dairygirl4u2c

also, this is somewhat of a tacit admission by a prominent catholic of the weakness of the catholic claim.

 

 

cardinal ratzinger, later pope benedict, now emeritus pope below.

basically, it's a model for how a relationship with the orthodox could be. that is, there's no condemnation of them, just a pius silence. and, it is expected that whatever beliefs the easterns differ on, they should allow that it is possible for Rome to be right. the idea, it was said, was that there shouldn't be more requirred of soemone who would have passed as christian in the earliest church, than if they were alive today. that is, they would have passed as a full christian then, but now because of their thoughts on infallibility of rome, are not considered christian.... and that this shouldn't be the case
 

 

4.22.2008 "The Ratzinger Proposal"

Certainly, no one who claims allegiance to Catholic theology can simply declare the doctrine of primacy null and void, especially not if he seeks to understand the objections and evaluates with an open mind the relative weight of what can be determined historically. Nor is it possible, on the other hand, for him to regard as the only possible form and, consequently, as binding on all Christians the form this primacy has taken in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The symbolic gestures of Pope Paul VI and, in particular, his kneeling before the representative of the Ecumenical Patriarch were an attempt to express precisely this and, by such signs, to point the way out of the historical impasse. Although it is not given us to halt the flight of history, to change the course of centuries, we may say, nevertheless, that what was possible for a thousand years is not impossible for Christians today. After all, Cardinal Humbert of Silva Candida, in the same bull in which he excommunicated the Patriarch Michael Cerularius and thus inaugurated the schism between East and West, designated the Emperor and people of Constantinople as “very Christian and orthodox”, although their concept of the Roman primacy was certainly far less different from that of Cerularius than from that, let us say, of the First Vatican Council. In other words, Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of primacy than had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium. When the Patriarch Athenagoras, on July 25, 1967, on the occasion of the Pope’s visit to Phanar, designated him as the successor of St. Peter, as the most esteemed among us, as one also presides in charity, this great Church leader was expressing the essential content of the doctrine of primacy as it was known in the first millennium. Rome need not ask for more. Reunion could take place in this context if, on the one hand, the East would cease to oppose as heretical the developments that took place in the West in the second millennium and would accept the Catholic Church as legitimate and orthodox in the form she had acquired in the course of that development, while, on the other hand, the West would recognize the Church of the East as orthodox and legitimate in the form she has always had.

Such a mutual act of acceptance and recognition, in the Catholicity that is common to and still possessed by each side, is assuredly no light matter. It is an act of self-conquest, of self-denunciation and, certainly, also of self-discovery. It is an act that cannot be brought about by diplomacy but must be a spiritual undertaking of the whole Church in both East and West. If what is theologically possible is also to be actually possible in the Church, the theological aspect must be spiritually prepared and spiritually accepted. My diagnosis of the relationship between East and West in the Church is as follows: from a theological perspective, the union of the Churches of East and West is fundamentally possible, but the spiritual preparation is not yet sufficiently far advanced and, therefore, not yet ready in practice. When I say it is fundamentally possible from a theological perspective, I do not overlook the fact that, on closer inspection, a number of obstacles still exist with respect to the theological possibility: from the Filioque to the question of the indissolubility of marriage. Despite these difficulties, some of which are present more strongly in the West, some in the East, we must learn that unity, for its part, is a Christian truth, an essentially Christian concept, of so high a rank that it can be sacrificed only to safeguard what is most fundamental, not where the way to it is obstructed by formulations and practices that, however important they may be, do not destroy community in the faith of the Fathers and in the basic form of the Church as they saw her.

– Joseph Cardinal RatzingerPrinciples of Catholic Theology: Building Stones for a Fundamental Theology (San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 1987), pp. 198-199. (source)

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dairygirl4u2c

i'm sure the former pope former theolgoians ratzingers words could apply to those eastern catholics who don't specifically support papal infallibility. afterall, it was mostly them who wanted to vote against papal infalliblity at vatican I, or who at least left as a matter of pricipal before the vote went down.

 

i remember Al using that ratzinger principle for the eastern catholics, saying it was a model for who to act with eastern orthodox and such. it looks like the ratzinger principle is meant for the eastern christians as a whole, after all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Credo in Deum
I never understood why the Papacy is such a stumbling block for so many Christians. Throughout the entire OT we see God making it a habit of appointing one man to be the leader of many. And yet for some reason when we get to the NT, and see God Himself; Jesus Christ, following the same way of doing things, we hear so many Christians say "Nah uh."

It's like the same crap you see with the Christians who oppose infants being baptized. You expect me to believe the same God that allowed, commanded, and was Himself circumcised as an infant, in order to enter to OT covenant, would all of a sudden have a problem with infants being baptized in order to enter into the NT covenant!? Give me a break.

Christ has not done away with the Old Church, He has perfected it! The Chair of Moses is now -by Christ command- the Chair of St. Peter. Edited by Credo in Deum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dairygirl4u2c

here are some more ideas:

 

 

Why Did Christians in Rome Respond to the Corinthians?

When he was fairly old, John reportedly was taken to Rome from Ephesus, then suddenly exiled to Patmos, by Emperor Domitian, and, “after the tyrant's death, he returned from the isle of Patmos to Ephesus” (Eusebius. Church History. Book III, Chapter 23.). It has been reported that this happened because the Emperor's efforts to kill John in oil did not work. Here is one account of the oil incident:

But since for the gospel he is continually prepared for death, he testified about himself to die daily under this meaning. It is also read that the blessed John had been plunged in a vat of boiling oil in the name of Christ. (Polycarp, Fragments from Victor of Capua (2006). Text and translation. Translated by Stephen C. Carlson. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/pearse/morefathers/files/polycarp_fragments_01_text.htm viewed 06/04/11)

Rome...Where Paul wins his crown in a death like John's where the Apostle John was first plunged, unhurt, into boiling oil, and thence remitted to his island-exile! (Tertullian. Prescription Against Heretics, Chapter 36. Translated by Peter Holmes. From Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 3. Edited by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1885.)

Whether or not John actually was plunged into oil, about this time, a schism occurred in Corinth and someone apparently decided to contact the Christians in Rome for assistance (possibly because John may have been in Rome then). The response that came was delayed “[b]ecause of the sudden and repeated misfortunes and reverses which have happened to us” (The Letter of the Romans to the Corinthians commonly known as First Clement. Verse 1. Holmes MW, ed. As translated in The Apostolic Fathers Greek Texts and English Translations. Baker Books, Grand Rapids, 3rd printing 2004, pp. 28-29 ) (perhaps including John’s exile). If this letter was sent to Rome because John and others were there, it simply shows that some in Corinth were trying to contact the leadership of the Church. Also, it seems logical that those in the Church at Rome may have decided that since John was being exiled, they should simply respond with their opinion.

Although many Catholics suggest the response sent (which they call 1 Clement) is definitive proof that the Bishop of Rome was the ruling Church, the letter actually refers to its contents only as “our advice” (Ibid, Verse 58..2, pp. 94-95) , does not list any author, and does not otherwise prove anything about Roman authority (other Catholic scholars realize that since Clement is not listed as the author that this was not definitive proof of the authority of any Roman bishop, see What Do Roman Catholic Scholars Actually Teach About Early Church History?).

Perhaps, it should be noted that Ignatius, while in Smyrna, sent a letter “via the Ephesians” to the Church in Rome (Ignatius. Letter to the Romans. Verse 10. In Holmes. pp. 176-177) as well as other letters to several other churches; so based on Corinthian letter logic, Catholics should have more reason to accept Asia Minor as the ruling Church instead of Rome. But even more so, because Ignatius specifically acknowledged that the Church in Ephesus had been predestined for greatness by God, as he wrote, “to the church at Ephesus in Asia, blessed with greatness through the fullness of God the Father, predestinated before the ages for lasting and unchangeable glory forever” (Ignatius. Letter to the Ephesians. Verse 0. In Holmes. pp. 136-137).

 

and....
 

Furthermore, according to Catholic sources, there were no bishops in Rome prior to the second century (and Peter died in the first century):

"We must conclude that the New Testament provides no basis for the notion that before the apostles died, they ordained one man for each of the churches they founded..."Was there a Bishop of Rome in the First Century?"...the available evidence indicates that the church in Rome was led by a college of presbyters, rather than by a single bishop, for at least several decades of the second century" (Sullivan F.A. From Apostles to Bishops: the development of the episcopacy in the early church. Newman Press, Mahwah (NJ), 2001, p. 80,221-222).

 

 

this may be apocraphal and wrong but:

 

Catholics may be surprised that the Roman and Orthodox Catholis saint (who they also call a "doctor of the church"), John Chrysostom clearly stated that the Apostle John, who Jesus called a son of thunder (Mark 3:17) and the one who learned upon Jesus (John 21:20), had the keys of heaven himself:

For the son of thunder, the beloved of Christ, the pillar of the Churches throughout the world, who holds the keys of heaven, who drank the cup of Christ, and was baptized with His baptism, who lay upon his Master's bosom with much confidence, this man comes forward to us now; not as an actor of a play, not hiding his head with a mask, (for he has another sort of words to speak,) nor mounting a platform, nor striking the stage with his foot, nor dressed out with apparel of gold, but he enters wearing a robe of inconceivable beauty. (John Chrysostom. Homily 1 on the Gospel of John, Preface, 2. Translated by Charles Marriott. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. 14. Edited by Philip Schaff. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1889.) Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight. <http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/240101.htm>.)

Although John Chrysostom is not wrong to teach that John was one who received 'the keys,' his teaching differs from the most common view in the Church of Rome that Peter alone had the keys (see Was Peter the Rock Who Alone Received the Keys of the Kingdom?).

 

 

not sure how to interpret this:

 

Ephesus was biblically important. John lived in Ephesus and despite him being apparently the last of the original apostles to die, not all accepted his leadership and form of church governance. Here is something he apparently wrote from Ephesus:

9 I wrote to the church, but Diotrephes, who loves to have the preeminence among them, does not receive us. 10 Therefore, if I come, I will call to mind his deeds which he does, prating against us with malicious words. And not content with that, he himself does not receive the brethren, and forbids those who wish to, putting them out of the church. 11 Beloved, do not imitate what is evil, but what is good. He who does good is of God, but he who does evil has not seen God (3 John 9-11)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dairygirl4u2c

i know there is decent evidence for the papacy and infalliblity before this cited date, but the information here does need to be looked into

 

 

And here are comments from two Catholics (Hans Kung and Pope John XII) regarding papal infallibility:

Catholic theologian Hans Kung writes:

With regard to the origin of the Roman doctrine of infallibility:...[it] did not slowly "develop" or "unfold," but rather it was created in one stroke in the late 1200s [by] an eccentric Franciscan, Peter Olivi (d. 1298), repeatedly accused of heresy. At first no one took Olivi's notion seriously...

Olivi's theory was soon denounced by a pontiff...Pope John XXII...John produced his Bull Qui quorundam (1324)...In it, John XXII reviled the doctrine of papal infallibility as "the work of the devil." (Ibid, pp. 112-113).

During the latter years of Olivi's life, Benedetto Gaetani became Pope Boniface VIII (1293). In 1302, he issued what is known as the bull Unam Sanctum that claimed..... [Outside of the Catholic Church, there is no salvation]

i find it interesting that this information ties into 'no salvation outside....' which is a prominent criticism i give to the CC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dairygirl4u2c

A current Catholic priest and scholar wrote:
 

Boniface certainly sounds like one more driven by his own lusts that one who was a true apostolic successor—but he is claimed to be for nearly a decade (1293-1303).  He also was confined to eternal torment by Dante in his Divine Comedy while Boniface VIII was still alive (Lopes, p. 69).

 

 

 

A few decades after Boniface VIII's death, here is some of what Pope John XXII wrote:

Because the father of lies is said to have so blinded the minds of certain [men], that they by [means of] false madness have obscured Our constitutions...Moreover, they have used as much as word as writing to impugn the aforesaid constitutions, for the alleged reason, as is shown: They say that "That which the Roman Pontiffs had defined by [means of] the key of knowledge, in faith and morals, once for all, persists unchangeable to such an extent, that it is not lawful for a successor to call it again into doubt, nor to affirm the contrary," although concerning those things, which have been ordained by [means of] the key of power, they assert it to be otherwise...

 

On account of which moreover, since it was previously mentioned in the aforesaid consideration, namely, that "It is not licit for their successors to call again into doubt those things, which were defined once for all by the key of knowledge in faith or morals by the Supreme Pontiffs, although it is otherwise," so they say, " in regards to those things, which have been ordained by the Supreme Pontiffs by [means of] the key of power," it is evidently clear from the following things [that] this is directly contrary to the truth...

 

If therefore after an interdict of a general council it was lawful for the supreme Pontiffs to confirm orders [that] had not been confirmed, and for their successors to dissolve completely [those which] had been so confirmed, is it not wonderful, if, what only the supreme Pontiff may declare or ordain concerning the rules of [religious] orders, it is lawful for his successors to declare or to change to other things...

 

We do declare that each and every [person], who by word or writing on his own or by means of another or others presumes [to do] such things publicly, and that also they, who teach these in regards to such things and do as has been aforementioned, have fallen into condemned heresy, and [are to be treated] as heretics to be avoided. If anyone, moreover, would presume by word or writing to knowingly defend or approve, one after the other, the heresies condemned by the constitution "Quum inter praedictam," or either of them, after [having taken] counsel of the same brother [cardinals], We judge that he is to be visibly treated as a heretic by all.

 

(John XXII. Quia quorundam. November 10, 1324 A. D. English translation made from the latin text, transcribed from "EXTRAVAG. IOANN. XXII. TIT. XIV. DE VERBORUM SIGNIFICATIONE CAP V [1]", DECRETALIUM CCOLLECTIONES, AKADEMISCHE DRUCK - U. VERLAGSANSTALT GRAZ, 1959, which was published as a second volume in a reprint of Codex Iuris Canonicis, ed. B. Tauchnitz, Leipzig,1879.)

Of course the logical question is if popes are infallible, then John XXII was infallible when he denounced papal infallibility, and even seems to condemn followers of it as heretics?

 

 

i'm not sure if John was acting in an official capacity when he wrote that, but he still thought it and said it, so it's not like it doesn't matter.
this is more stuff that should be looked into.

Edited by dairygirl4u2c

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dairygirl4u2c

 

In his book on the First Vatican Council, August Hasler wrote, "John XXII didn't want to hear about his own infallibility. He viewed it as an improper restriction of his rights as a sovereign, and in the bull Qui quorundam (1324) condemned the Franciscan doctrine of papal infallibility as the work of the devil."[58]

Brian Tierney has summed up his view of the part played by John XXII as follows:

Pope John XXII strongly resented the imputation of infallibility to his office â€“ or at any rate to his predecessors. The theory of irreformability proposed by his adversaries was a 'pestiferous doctrine', he declared; and at first he seemed inclined to dismiss the whole idea as 'pernicious audacity'. However, through some uncharacteristic streak of caution or through sheer good luck (or bad luck) the actual terms he used in condemning the Franciscan position left a way open for later theologians to re-formulate the doctrine of infallibility in different language.[59]

In 1330, the Carmelite bishop Guido Terreni described the pope's charism of infallibility in terms very similar to those that the First Vatican Council was to use in 1870.[60]

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dairygirl4u2c

i think i remember reading the catholic encyclopedia making it seem that no one voted against infalliblity at vatican i, but maybe one or two, it was ambiguous. i'm not aware that in the main article at least, that it mentions that many were opposed to it, and of those most just left the council

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dairygirl4u2c

"How the Pope Became Infallible: Pius IX and the Politics of Persuasion

 

"Infallible?: An Inquiry"

 

"How the Pope Became...."

"How that doctrine went from being a minority opinion at the beginning of the nineteenth century to a solemnly defined dogma at the First Vatican Council in 1870 makes for the fascinating story of personality conflicts, papal politics, and doctrinal transformations that the Swiss historian August Berhard Hasler recounts in this controversial book. At center stage is the redoubtable Pius IX, for whom the achievement of a binding conciliar definition of papal infallibility became a crusade, if not an obsession. Hasler details how he bullied and coerced opponents of the definition and hounded doubters after the doctrine was proclaimed by having their works placed on the Index of Forbidden Books, Did the pope's epilepsy influence his behavior? Did the pressures ha and his allies exerted on the waverers among the bishops render the Council unfree and its decisions of questionable validity? These are the kinds of questions Father Hasler raises in his thought-provoking and ultimately constructive effort to reopen debate on the major issue that still divides Christians and makes headlines more than a century after the doctrine was solemnly proclaimed."

 

"The minority [anti-infallible ists]  regarded as especially compromising the case of Pope Boniface VIII... If the pope was infallible, then his bull Unam sanctam must also be considered infallible. But in it Boniface maintained he had secular authority over all Christians and declared that faithful obedience to the papacy was required for salvation... Today no one bothers to defend this bull anymore." (Pg. 163-164)"

Edited by dairygirl4u2c

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dairygirl4u2c

definitely makes for some dense reading, Pope John XXII:

 

http://www.franciscan-archive.org/bullarium/qquor-e.html

 

"Our predecessors the Supreme Pontiffs, they assert [that] these words are contained: “This is the evangelical rule of Christ, the imitator of the Apostles, who had nothing in this world [either] as their own or in common, but in [those] things which were used [......]” presuming to add to these that the aforementioned Supreme Pontiffs and many general councils have defined it by the key of knowledge [....] consisted in the perfect expropriation of whatever temporal dominion, civil and mundane, and that even their sustenance consisted solely and merely in the usus facti, from which they strive to conclude, that it has not been licit nor is it licit for their successors to change anything against the aforementioned things. And for that reason when Our constitution in the aforesaid doctrine defined (as they assert) things contrary to the definitions of Our aforesaid predecessors, they satisfy themselves to conclude, although falsely, that is was not lawful for us to declare or establish that Christ and the Apostles in those things, which they had, had not only the simplex usus facti, but [also] the usus faciendi of them, and that scripture testifies that they did those things, by declaring [i.e. when it declared] heretical the pertinacious assertion of [those who] say that these same men did not have the least right of this kind, since [such ones] infer that the deeds of these men were not just—which is a wicked thing to say about Christ. Likewise, since the constitution Ad conditorem canonum, asserted against the aforesaid definitions that the Friars Minor can not have the simplex usus facti in anything, they strive similarly to argue against it."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×