Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
dairygirl4u2c

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

Recommended Posts

dairygirl4u2c

i did not know the 'donation of constantine' played such a prominant role in the Great Schism

 

 

"Now the papacy was not directly responsible for this final blow, the pope being dead at this time. However the papacy then had multiple centuries to undo the damage, using the supposed charism of St Peter for unity. Pope Stephen IX in particular, being one of the villian papal legates had a good opportunity to repent, but did not do so. By this time the papacy had imbibed deeply from the well of the forged Donation of Constantine."

 

"Michael Cerularius then, in an error of judgment, enlisted Leo, Archbishop of Ochrid, head of the Bulgarian church, in the writing of a letter to the Byzantine bishop, John of Trani in Apulia. This letter, in which he vehemently attacked the practices of the Latin church, such as the use of unleavened bread, was to be passed on to the Pope and the bishops of the Franks. When Pope Leo IX read this vitriolic epistle, he was deeply offended and quickly responded in kind with a detailed document disrespectfully addressed to "Michael of Constantinople, and Leo of Ochrid, bishops", in which he lectured them on the supremacy of Rome. The rationale Leo used for these papal claims was the forged Donation of Constantine, a document unknown to the Byzantines."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dUSt

Is dairygirl a bot? Like, for real.

 

Dairygirl, are you a bot? Answer these questions:

 

What is your favorite color?

What did you have for breakfast?

Bangs or no bangs?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dairygirl4u2c

Is dairygirl a bot? Like, for real.

 

Dairygirl, are you a bot? Answer these questions:

 

What is your favorite color?

What did you have for breakfast?

Bangs or no bangs?

 

I am a real person, my name is Yvette and I am watching Encino Man while answering your questions.

My favorite is brown! Thank you for asking! !

 

I had breakfast toast, egg and with cup of coffee.

 

My personal preference is bangs, but it depends on the shape of the face.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dairygirl4u2c

"If by the Roman Church you mean its head or pontiff, it is beyond question that he can err even in matters touching the faith. He does this when he teaches heresy by his own judgement or decretal. In truth, many Roman pontiffs were heretics. The last of them was Pope John XXII (1334)." Pope Adrian VI, 1523 (Quaestiones in IV Sent quoted in Viollet, Papal Infallibility and the Syllabus, 1908)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dairygirl4u2c

Pope Pius IX (1878) recognised the danger that a future pope would be a heretic and teach contrary to the Catholic Faith, and he instructed, do not follow him.

If a future pope teaches anything contrary to the Catholic Faith, do not follow him. (Letter to Bishop Brizen)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dairygirl4u2c

The Anglo-Irish Catechism contained the following question:

(Q) Must not Catholics believe the Pope in himself to be infallible?

(A) This is a Protestant invention: it is no article of the Catholic faith.

Every little Catholic boy and girl learnt this by heart. The Pope is not infallible.

 

In 1826, in the time of Pope Leo XII, the Bishops of Ireland wrote to the faithful Catholics of Ireland a "Declaration of the Archbishops and Bishops of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland" :

"The Catholics of Ireland declare their belief that it is not an article of the Catholic faith, neither are they required to believe, that the Pope is infallible."

Of course a few years later in 1870 when the Pope was declared infallible, the poor Irish bishops, probably now in some sort of material heresy, had to hastily backtrack and try to forget that they had ever taught their people that he was not.

They were also obliged to revise the Catechism and its teaching. What was Catholic teaching in 1869 had become heresy in 1870.

After 1870, the question on papal infallibility was omitted entirely from the Catechism, but in 1896 the following was added:

"Q: Is the Pope infallible?

A: Yes, the Pope is infallible.

Q: But some Catholics, before the Vatican Council, denied the infallibility of the Pope, which was impugned by this very Catechism.

A: Yes, they did so under the usual reservation, insofar as they then could grasp the mind of the Church, and subject to her future definitions, thus implicitly accepting the dogma."

Does anybody other than me have to smile at the logic of that last answer? Declaring that the Pope is not infallible is an implicit assertion that he is!

Edited by dairygirl4u2c

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dairygirl4u2c

On September 8th, 1713, Pope Clement XI issued a Bull, Unigenitus, which among other things condemned the proposition that reading of the bible is for everyone, and seemed to exalt the efficacy of grace to the point of destroying liberty. It also appeared to limit the Church to the predestined only. The storm of protest that arose against it proves conclusively that 18th century Catholic Europe had little notion of Papal Infallibility. This Papal Bull almost brought France to the brink of schism and the Austrian Emperor forbade the Bull Unigenitus in his territories. This Bull sparked a debate as to the limits of papal authority. Sicilian seminaries were teaching their students that General Councils were supreme over the Pope and were using Unigenitus to show how Popes could err. Everywhere, the battle over Unigenitus caused a decline in the reputation of the See of Rome as a teacher of doctrinal truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dairygirl4u2c

In 1826, the declaration of the Archbishops and Bishops of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland, was endorsed by the signatures of 30 bishops, declaring that The Catholics of Ireland declare on oath their belief that it is not an article of the Catholic faith, neither are they required to believe that the pope is infallible. Archbishop Kenrick of St. Louis pointed out in his undelivered speech, which he had published in Naples, that for two hundred years a book had been in circulation entitled Roman Catholic Principles in Reference to God and the King. It enjoyed such a wide circulation that from 1748 to 1813 it underwent 35 editions and the Very Reverend Vicar Apostolic Coppinger in England had 12 printings of it. On the question of Papal Infallibility it states:

"It is no matter of faith to believe that the Pope is in himself infallible, separated from the Church, even in expounding the faith: by consequence of Papal definitions or decrees, in whatever form pronounced, taken exclusively from a General Council, or universal acceptance of the Church, oblige none, under pain of heresy, to an interior assent."

Do Catholics seriously wonder why the Orthodox don't accept papal infallibility? Less than 200 years ago, papal infallibility was at best a theory mentioned quietly in certain circles. It was by no means Catholic belief. Roman Catholic belief has changed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dairygirl4u2c

Quote

 

Cardinal Guidi, Archbishop of Bologna, in a speech before the Council said that, while accepting infallibility, he urged the Pope to take the counsel of his bishops before issuing decisions as this is the tradition of the Church. Guidis speech was reported to the Pope and he was sent for and scolded. The surprised Cardinal responded that he was only maintaining that bishops are witnesses of tradition. "Witnesses of tradition?" said the Pope, "There is only one; that's me." Even Roman Catholic author Dom Cuthbert Butler in his popular work, "The Vatican Council", admits to the personal influence of Pius IX: "Did it amount to undue influence? That at the final stages he exerted his personal influence to the utmost cannot be questioned, for it was quite open."

Strenuous objections were voiced at the Council regarding the lack of freedom due to the manner of the agenda. Dom Butler admits to the Popes control over the Council when he writes, "In all things the Pope kept to himself the complete mastery. Things which at Trent had been left in the hands of the Fathers - settlement of claims to take part in the Council, appointment of officials, regulation of procedure, etc. - were all now fixed by the personal act of the Pope. The bishops were invited and exhorted to suggest freely anything for deliberation that they thought would be for the general good of the Church. But such proposals or postulations must be submitted to a special Congregation, nominated by the Pope, for dealing with such postulates, to consider them and report its advice to the Pope, with whom the decision would lie as to whether the thing be brought forward at the Council or not."

Denying the validity of the Council, Archbishop Peter Richard Kenrick refused to speak at any of the general sessions after June 4th, 1870. Bishop Joseph Strossmeyer of Diakovar told Lord Acton, "There is no denying that the Council lacked freedom from beginning to end." To Professor Joseph Hubert Reinkens, Strossmeyer said that the Vatican Council had not had the freedom necessary to make it a true Council and to justify its passing resolutions binding the conscience of the entire Catholic world. The proof of this was perfectly self-evident.

Bishop Francois Le Courtier spoke for many when he wrote,

"Our weakness at this moment comes neither from scripture nor the tradition of the Fathers nor the witness of the General Councils nor the evidence of history. It comes from our lack of freedom, which is radical. An imposing minority, representing the faith of more than one hundred million Catholics, that is, almost half of the entire Church, is crushed beneath the yoke of a restrictive agenda, which contradicts conciliar traditions. It is crushed by commissions which have not been truly elected and which dare to insert undebated paragraphs in the text after debate has closed. It is crushed by the commission for postulates, which has been imposed from above. It is crushed by the absolute absence of discussion, response, objections, and the opportunity to demand explanations; The minority is crushed, above all, by the full weight of the supreme authority which oppresses it." Furthermore, the opposing minority of about two hundred bishops objected to the short time allowed for studying the text on primacy and infallibility as well as to the practice adopted by the deputations of inserting new clauses at the last moment.

The minority bishops were not allowed to discuss the historical objections against Papal Infallibility with the deputation on the faith. In a letter Bishop Le Courtier complains, "See what more than aught else destroys our liberty: it is crushed under the respect we have for our Head." Later in frustrated anger, Bishop Francois Le Courtier tossed his council documents into the river Tiber and left Rome. The papers were retrieved and brought to the attention of Vatican officials. The price for this gesture was extracted three years later, when he was dismissed as Bishop of Montpellier.

In spite of the unequal representation and Pius IX using the power and prestige of his office, there was still a large number - eighty-eight bishops - who voted against Papal Infallibility, which was enshrined in the constitution, Pastor Aeternus. Sixty-two bishops, many of whom were de facto opponents, voted with reservations, with only four hundred and fifty-one giving a clear yes - this is less than half of the one thousand and eighty-four prelates with voting privileges and less than two-thirds of the seven hundred bishops in attendance at the commencement of the Council. Over seventy-six bishops in Rome abstained from voting and fifty-five bishops informed the Pope that "while maintaining their opposition to the definition that out of filial piety and reverence, which very recently brought our representatives to the feet of your Holiness, do not allow us in a cause so closely concerning Your Holiness to say non placet (it is not pleasing) openly in the face of the Father." This statement alone speaks volumes for the subservience that these bishops had for the immense authority figure of the Pope - a presence unknown in the councils of the Early Church.

Archbishop Kenrick of Saint Louis, who was one of America's extraordinary bishops, wanted to deliver a speech against the proposed doctrine at the Council but instead he ceased to attend the Council meetings. In his speech prepared for, but not delivered in, the Vatican Council, and published at Naples in 1870, he declares that Roman Catholics cannot establish the Petrine privilege from Scripture, because of the clause in the Creed of Pius IV, binding them to interpret Scripture only according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers. And he adds that there are five different patristic interpretations of St. Matt. 16:18. Archbishop Kendrick summarises, "If we are bound to follow the greater number of Fathers in this matter, then we must hold for certain that the word "Petra" means not Peter professing the Faith, but the faith professed by Peter."

"I also admit the Holy Scripture according to that sense which our holy mother the Church hath held, and doth hold, to whom it belongeth to judge of the true sense and interpretations of the Scriptures. Neither will I ever take and interpret them otherwise than according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers." - Tridentine Creed

Thus lacking a moral unanimity or even a clear two-thirds majority, Papal Infallibility was now elevated as an article of faith equal to the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation. A belief that could not possibly meet the Vincentian canon of Universality, Antiquity and Consent, and in fact a belief not universally shared by Catholics even within living memory of the Council that solemnly defined it. Years later, Orthodox theologian Sergei Bulgakov, observed with disdain that, "The Vatican Council has as much right to call itself a Council as todays meetings of delegates from the Soviet republics can claim to be a free expression of the will of the people."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dairygirl4u2c

The first council was called by Emperor Constantine. Some Roman Catholic books claim that it was called with the consent of the Pope, but as Catholic historian Leo Donald Davis points out in his book "The Seven Ecumenical Councils", this legend surfaced in the 7th and 8th centuries.

This first council set the blueprint for all the other 6 councils. "They were all called by the Emperor, they were all held in the East, all the proceedings were conducted in Greek, they were all were overwhelmingly attended by Eastern bishops... The Pope never attended any of the 7 councils. The 2nd council was called without the knowledge of the Pope, and the 4th and 5th were called against his express wishes." (11)

"Thus we see the early church was conciliar in government, and the general councils represented the highest judicial body of the Church, and that these councils were not called to advise the Bishop of Rome, and that Bishops of Rome did not enjoy veto power. Nowhere in the canons or creeds of any of these councils do we find any recognition of Rome's claim to supreme universal jurisdiction" let alone power to declare dogma ex-cathedra. "None of the Church Fathers ever settled doctrinal disputes by appealing to an infallible pope."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dairygirl4u2c

The Council of Sardica

Called in 343 A.D. by the Roman Emperors Constans and Constantius II at the urgent entreaty of Pope Julius I

Eighty Eastern bishops, refused to accept that Eastern bishops should be judged or ordered by Rome. In addition, they were outraged to learn that bishops expelled from the Church by a lawful Eastern synod were reinstated by Rome, which acted alone and with no authority to make such a unilateral decision.

As a result of these conflicts, we read in the highly informative and very authoritative ancient documents Collectanea Antiariana Parisina (A, IV) the following condemnation of Rome's self-imposed and fictional authority over the Church at large. The majority bishops, seeing Rome's desire for hegemony, wrote: (We protest strongly)... "the novelty, which is abhorrent to the ancient custom of the Church, that that which has been decided by an Oriental Council of bishops should be revoked by a Western bishop."

At the conclusion of the documents Pope Julius is censured with an anathema.

You see there the proof that the notion of any supremacy of authority in Rome was NOT known to these bishops. They deem it a novelty. They say it is "abhorrent to the ancient custom of the Church."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dairygirl4u2c

However, to prop up their claims, Catholics of the middle ages found it necessary to forge the evidence. A great number of forgeries attributed to Cyril were accepted by Thomas Aquinas. How different things may have been were he not misled! The forgeries are listed by Roman Catholic Scholar Jean de Launoy (~Op., tom. V. bk. i. p. 1).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...