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

[dairygirl4u2c]

"When Pope Zosimus restored Pelagius, Augustine and the African church did not hesitate to vigorously oppose him by calling a council at Carthage where Pelagius was anathematized. The council then appealed to the tribunal of the Roman Emperor Honorius who issued an imperial edict banishing the Pelagians from Rome. Pope Zosimus ultimately backed down and issued his own condemnation."(5)

"Augustine had ample opportunity in his actions and vast literary works to express belief in the supreme jurisdiction of Rome. Of all the Fathers of the Church, Augustine wrote the most on church unity and authority. He wrote 75 chapters to the separated Donatists in "The Unity of the Church", using all sort of arguments to urge them to return to communion. Of the necessity of communion with Rome, or Rome as a centre of unity, or Rome's supreme authority, there is not one single word." (6) The silence is deafening.

[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).

 

i would be worth while to compare what exactly Aquinas thought, when comparing the article by Tierney about how far papal power went, with what he may have thought if it weren't for the forgeries. as of now it looks like Aauinas thought less than was later said to be believed by middle age folks like Olivi, but based on this above stuff, we can see that he thought even less than we think to begin with too. plus, we see that augustine from way earlier has more 'say' than Aquinas given he was deceived.

[dairygirl4u2c]

http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/topic/135530-early-claims-of-inerrancy-and-origins-of-infallibility/

[dairygirl4u2c]

bump

[dairygirl4u2c]

ive never seen a catholic address...

 

"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)

 

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)

[julianneoflongbeach]

 Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven.
And I tell you that you are Peter (Rock), and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.
I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

Dairy, if you do not comprehend what happened here, or simply disbelieve what Jesus Himself said or meant, then it is all academic. Everything, all the tradition and theology concerning the papacy, that comes after this is gravy on the meatloaf. If you refuse to understand/believe the words of Jesus then there is absolutely no argument under the sun that has been developed since that will convince you.

So stop spamming, I don't think anyone here is willing to wade through all that.

[Peace]

WOW this thread is crazy. One might consider the virtue of brevity.

[dairygirl4u2c]

Eastern_Orthodox_opposition_to_papal_supremacy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_opposition_to_papal_supremacy#Opposition_arguments_from_early_church_history

[dairygirl4u2c]

"Is it not true that, confronted with such a danger to the faith [a Pope teaching heresy], any subject can, by fraternal correction, warn their superior, resist him to his face, refute him and, if necessary, summon him and press him to repent? The Cardinals, who are his counselors, can do this; or the Roman Clergy, or the Roman Synod, if, being met, they judge this opportune. For any person, even a private person, the words of Saint Paul to Titus hold: ‘Avoid the heretic, after a first and second correction, knowing that such a man is perverted and sins, since he is condemned by his own judgment’ (Tit. 3, 10-11). For the person, who, admonished once or twice, does not repent, but continues pertinacious in an opinion contrary to a manifest or defined dogma - not being able, on account of this public pertinacity to be excused, by any means, of heresy properly so called, which requires pertinacity - this person declares himself openly a heretic.

(Pietri Ballerini)

[dairygirl4u2c]

the following is pro catholic church. this thread after all isn't bashing the catholic church it's more of a database regarding the validity of its authority. the following is decent proof of infallibility in the early church. i might still expect more but this is at least something. 

Pope Damasus I
"Likewise it is decreed . . . that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it" (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).

Hormisdas formula in 519
“... in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved immaculate.” 
(i've seen this worded differently where it makes a big difference what is being said)

Cyprian of Carthage, writing about 256, put the question this way, "Would the heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" 

Irenaeus writes: "Where the charismata of the Lord are given, there must we seek the truth, with those to whom belongs the ecclesiastical succession from the Apostles, and the unadulterated and incorruptible word. It is they who …are the guardians of our faith…and securely expound the Scriptures to us" (Against Heresies 185 Ad

[dairygirl4u2c]

"I agree with Dr. Tierney when he says that "no eminent canonist of the later Middle Ages was willing to accept the new doctrine," if that is to be understood in the sense that the debates and different opinions continued to exist in the canonical literature, but not in the sense that there would not have been present in them all the essential elements of a doctrine which was certainly not created by 01ivi but common elements of a tradition of organic development which really is present in its various stages even in the first millennium of the Church. as the First Vatican Council rightly (in my humble opinion) affirmed. "

tierney v stickler

http://www.mgh-bibliothek.de/dokumente/b/b060307.pdf

[philothea]

You might be interested in The Story of Christianity, by David Bentley Hart. (He's Greek Orthodox, I believe).

[linate]

more on 'error free' teaching:
Pope St. Innocent I "...whatever is done, even though it be in distance provinces, should not be ended until it comes to the knowledge of this see, that by its authority the whole just pronouncement should be strengthened, and that from there the other churches, like waters proceeding from their natal source and flowing through the different regions of the world, the pure streams of an in-corrupt Head, should take up what they ought to believe” (P.L. 33.780)

stephen ray has a book "upon this rock" that has other examples

 

looks like the church officially taught geocentrism?

 

Theodoret 400AD   "this most holy see has preserved the supremeacy over all church on the earth, for one especial reason among many others; to wit, that it has remained intact from the defilement of heresy. No one has ever sat on that Chair, who has taught heretical doctrine; rather that See has ever preserved unstained the Apostolic grace"

[linate]

Council of Ephesus 431  "[history of Peter] ... The holy and most blessed pope Celestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place, and us he sent his place in this holy synod, which the most humane and Christian Emperors have commanded to assemble, bearing in mind and continually watching over the Catholic faith. For they have kept and are now keeping intact the apostolic doctrine handed down to them from their most pious and humane grandfathers and fathers of holy memory down to the present time."

Flavian Patriarch of Constantinople to Pope Leo, AD 449   "The whole question needs only your single decision and all will be settled in peace and quietness. Your sacred letter will with God's help completely suppress th heresy which has arisen and the disturbance which it has caused; and so the convening of a council which is in any case difficult will be rendered superfluous."

[linate]

rebutting the roman bishop's innovations on the papacy
http://www.trueorthodoxy.org/heretics_roman_catholics_infalibility_pope.shtml

here are some more catholic 'innovations' to put it nicely, from those who are truly orthodox
http://www.trueorthodoxy.org/heretics_roman_catholics_brief_replies_papal_innovations.shtml