Jump to content


Photo
* * * - - 2 votes

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


  • Please log in to reply
62 replies to this topic

#1 dairygirl4u2c

dairygirl4u2c

    dairy queen of phatmass

  • Phishy
  • 6,505 posts
  • Non-Denominational

Posted 21 August 2013 - 09:11 AM

i posted this at catholic answers, but any time i post something like this, it gets removed etc. they have very high censorship there. 

 

 
if you go to catholic.com and look at their quotes supporting the papacy, they and read them in a unifying sense only and not as the catholic church would have you believe, you see a different way to interpret them. and, if you look at their most striking quotes from cyprian and firmilian, you might want to defer to the catholics, until you read the context of those qutoes. 
and if you read more on early history, papal supermemcy is far from certain. you'd think it'd be clearer. 
 
St. Cyprian(200-258 a.d.):
"To all the apostles, after His resurrection, He gives an equal power...the other Apostles also were what Peter was, endued with an equal fellowship both of honor and power..."(On the Unity of the Catholic Church, 4)

Cyprian once called a council of 87 bishops in Carthage. The purpose of that council, according to The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. V, was:

When Stephen, bishop of Rome, had by his letters condemned the decree of the African Council on the Baptism of Heretics, Cyprian lost no time in holding another council at Carthage with a greater number of bishops. ("The Seventh Council of Carthage, Under Cyprian, Concerning the Baptism of Heretics")

That council declared, in the very first paragraph of its report of proceedings:

For neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another. (ibid.)"

If St. Cyprian believed that the bishop of Rome was pope and had primacy over all other bishops, he sure had a strange way of showing it!
 
Cyprian's colleague responded....
I (Firmilian) am justly indignant at this so open and manifest folly of Stephen, that he who so boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid, should introduce many other rocks and establish new buildings of many churches; maintaining that there is baptism in them by his authority (Epistle 74.17).
How great sin have you (Stephen) heaped up for yourself, when you cut yourself off from so many flocks! For it is yourself that you have cut off. Do not deceive yourself, since he is really the schismatic who has made himself an apostate from the communion of ecclesiastical unity. For while you think that all may be excommunicated by you, you have excommunicated yourself alone from all (Epistle 74.24). 

"was Cyprian Wrong?  No, Cyprian was right, and history remembers him, not Stephen. Numerous writings of St. Cyprian have been preserved, but none of Stephen's.

But our subject here is not whether Cyprian was right. The subject is whether Cyprian can be quoted as proof of papal primacy in the 3rd century church. And clearly, he cannot be.

Even if St. Cyprian was a heretic and dangerous man, the issue is that Catholic apologists are quoting him in defense of the bishop of Rome having the authority of a pope in Cyprian's time. Quoting him out of the context of his life and his other sayings is simply dishonest."
 

the easter controversy
victor is from about 100 AD .... Though Victor tried to change the stance of the churches of Asia Minor, and though he threatened to break fellowship with them if they didn�t change their stance, they ignored his threats. The church father and church historian Eusebius, in his church history (5:24), records part of a letter written to Victor by Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus. Polycrates explains that he and other church leaders will maintain their stance on the celebration of Easter, and that they aren�t intimidated by Victor�s threats:
"I, therefore, brethren, who have lived sixty-five years in the Lord, and have met with the brethren throughout the world, and have gone through every Holy Scripture, am not affrighted by terrifying words. For those greater than I have said �we ought to obey God rather than man.� "

---------------------

councils and popes

The Counsil of NIcea (325 a.d.)
In Canon 6, this council declared that each center was to be ruled by its own bishop and not by one head over all bishops. (Ante Nicene Father, 7:502, "Constitutions of the Holy Apostles")

Pope Gregory, 500AD
"I say it without the least hisitation, whoever calls himself the universal bishop, or desires this title, is by his pride the precursor of the anti-Christ because he thus attempts to raise himself above the others. The error into which he falls springs from pride equal to that of the anti-Christ. For as that wicked one wished to be regarded as exalted above other men, like a god, so likewise whosoever would call himself sole bishop exalteth himself above others"

" Your Holiness has been at pains to tell us that in addressing certain persons you no longer give them certain tiles that have no better origin than pride, using this phrase regarding me 'as you have commanded me.' I pray you let me never again here this word command; for i know who i am and who you are, by your position you are my brethren; by your virtue you are my fathers. I have, therefore, not commanded; I have only been careful to point out things which seemed to me useful. Still i do not find that your Holiness has perfectly remembered what i particularly wished to empress on your memory; FOR I SAID THAT YOU SHOULD NO MORE GIVE THAT TITLE TO ME THAN TO OTHERS; and lo! in the superscription of your letter, you gave to me, who have proscribed them, the VAINGLORIOUS TITLES OF UNIVERSAL AND POPE. May your sweet Holiness do so no more in the future. I beseech you; FOR YOU TAKE FROM YOURSELF WHAT YOU GIVE EXCESS TO ANOTHER. I do not esteem that an honor which caused my brethren to lose their own dignity. My honor is that of the whole Church. My honor is the unshakable firmness of my brethren. I consider myself truly honored when no one is denied the honor due to them. IF YOUR HOLINESS CALLS ME UNIVERSAL POPE, YOU DENY THAT YOU ARE YOURSELF WHAT I SHOULD BE ALTOGETHER. GOD FORBID! FAR FROM US BE WORDS THAT PUFF UP VANITY AND WOUND CHARITY."

The reason why he wrote this letter was to refute schisms that the bishop of rome had more authority then the other bishops. Would it make sense to think that gregory had authority over the other bishops after he just wrote this letter to the bishop of alexandria saying in so many words that he was equal to him? 

"It cannot be denied that if any one bishop be called universal, all the church crumbles if that universal one fall"

--------------------

St. Jerome (342-420 a.d.)
"Wherever a bishop may be whether at Rome or at Eugubium, at Constantinople or at Rhegium, at Alexandria or at Thanis, he is of the same worth...for all of them are the successors of the apostles."

St. Ambrose of Milan (`300): "He (St. Peter), then, who before was silent, to teach us that we ought not to repeat the words of the impious, this one, I say, when he heard, 'But who do you say I am,' immediately, not unmindful of his station, exercised his primacy, that is, the primacy of confession, not of honor; the primacy of belief, not of rank. This, then, is Peter, who has replied for the rest of the Apostles; rather, before the rest of men...." [Saint Ambrose, The Sacrament of the Incarnation of Our Lord, IV.32-V.34].

Newman said the alternative unifying thory is a formidable belief. he said the chruch grew like an acorn tree. whether it grew through God's power into what it is now, or by man's power, he said early history could be interpreted either way. the reason he was saying this is because people were dissing the chuch because the early text is so ambiguos, and he wanted them to realize the organic nature of the church: even if it were true, it's not gonna just spring up; if you were Peter, you wouldn't just say hey i'm infallible, watch out; it's be more natural. if it were true, i'm sure he had a time coming to grips with what it was... and i'm not even sure, even if the chruch is true,, whether he would have to even know or did know the extent of his power. Newman was resistant of hte first vaitcan council to vote yea on infallibilty because of ehse historical difficulties, as he put it, even though it's generally believed he himself believed in it. he was afraid of how outsiders would take the catholic church.


#2 havok579257

havok579257

    PM Pham

  • Church Militant
  • 2,816 posts
  • Catholic

Posted 21 August 2013 - 10:12 AM

do you not see that no one takes you seriously anymore?  no one is really going to debate you.



#3 dairygirl4u2c

dairygirl4u2c

    dairy queen of phatmass

  • Phishy
  • 6,505 posts
  • Non-Denominational

Posted 21 August 2013 - 10:30 AM

what's not to take seriously? these are the same types of arguments the orthodox use. and everyone takes them seriously. the orthodox don't remain separate just because they haven't read www.catholic.com. if the CC claims aren't so weak, this is where the clearer evidence should be inserted.  also, it's indisputeable that catholic.com and other justifications are purposefully distorted as mentioned above. this seems a lot less credible, less to take seriously, than anything from me. 

there's so little from what i've said to criticize me for, that your point is next to without basis.



#4 CatholicsAreKewl

CatholicsAreKewl

    PM Super Alien

  • Cordial Non-Catholic
  • 1,499 posts
  • None of the above

Posted 21 August 2013 - 10:32 AM

Lol me havok and Dairy should form our own subgroup.



#5 MarysLittleFlower

MarysLittleFlower

    PM Super Alien

  • Chummy Commoner
  • 1,102 posts
  • Catholic

Posted 21 August 2013 - 10:48 AM

I research the early Church sometimes so I'd be interested in sharing some information :) I think I saw your post too on Catholic Answers, or maybe a similar one.

 

Some points...

 

1. St Cyprian disagreed with Pope Stephen on whether heretics are validly baptized (which was a contentious issue in the day). However, didn't the Church actually accept Pope Stephen's view, and this is what is held even today? that's why Protestant baptisms are accepted IF done correctly, in the name of the Holy Trinity.

 

 

2. Regarding "universal Bishop":

 

I looked into this before... actually when this was condemned, by say Pope Gregory, he was writing not the Pope (he was Pope, obviously) but the Patriarch of Constantinople I think, who wanted the title "universal bishop". Pope Gregory disagreed with this title because it makes it seem like *other Bishops are not Bishops*. However, the Papacy doesn't say anything like that. Other Bishops are full Bishops and the Pope doesn't make them "half Bishops" or anything like that. If you look at Pope Gregory's comment carefully, it seems to imply this understanding. It could be the same with "bishop of bishops".

 

Here's the quote:

"For if one, as he supposes, is universal bishop, it remains that you are not bishops."

 

and

 

"how one, who had professed himself unworthy to be called a Bishop at all, should now despise his brethren, and aspire to be called the sole Bishop."

 

But Pope Gregory was a firm supporter of the Papacy it seems. He might have said this to the Patriarch just to promote humility. About the role of Rome, he said things like this:

 

"As to what they say of the Church of Christ, who doubts that it is subject to the Apostolic See [i.e. Rome] ?"

 

"Now eight years ago, in the time of my predecessor of holy memory Pelagius, our brother and fellow-bishop John in the city of Constantinople, . . . held a synod in which he attempted to call himself Universal Bishop. Which as soon as my said predecessor knew, he dispatched letters annulling by the authority of the holy apostle Peter the acts of the said synod; of which letters I have taken care to send copies to your Holiness.

{Epistle XLIII, emphasis added}

 

"To all who know the Gospel it is clear that by the words of our Lord the care of the whole Church was committed to Blessed Peter, the Prince of the Apostles . . . Behold, he received the keys of the kingdom of heaven, the power to bind and loose was given to him, and the care and principality of the entire church was committed to him . . . Yet he was not the universal Apostle. But . . . John would be called universal Bishop . . . [Popes had never assumed this title, though it had been given them], lest all the Bishops be deprived of their due meed of honor whilst some special honor be conceded to one.

{Epistles, 5, 37; to Emperor Maurice, emphasis

 

Source of quotes: http://socrates58.bl...sal-papacy.html

 

So we can see Pope Gregory really supported the role of Rome, while disagreeing with someone calling themselves the "universal bishop" because he thought this is like saying there's only ONE Bishop. Which is not what the Church teaches. So... I'm just showing there need not be contradiction.

 

Saint Peter had the care of the whole Church, as Pope Gregory said... so it's not wrong to say that one can have the care of the whole Church. He then said that he was still not called universal Apostle, because Pope Gregory said this could imply others are not Apostles.

 

If: Saint Peter had the care of the whole Church and was not called Universal Apostle,

 

what's stopping the Pope from having the care of the whole Church and not being called Universal Bishop?

 

So whenever such titles are disagreed with by the Popes, - it's clarified here that it's not the actual role of the Pope that is being disagreed with. Hope that makes sense.

 


Edited by MarysLittleFlower, 21 August 2013 - 10:52 AM.


#6 havok579257

havok579257

    PM Pham

  • Church Militant
  • 2,816 posts
  • Catholic

Posted 21 August 2013 - 11:08 AM

what's not to take seriously? these are the same types of arguments the orthodox use. and everyone takes them seriously. the orthodox don't remain separate just because they haven't read www.catholic.com. if the CC claims aren't so weak, this is where the clearer evidence should be inserted.  also, it's indisputeable that catholic.com and other justifications are purposefully distorted as mentioned above. this seems a lot less credible, less to take seriously, than anything from me. 

there's so little from what i've said to criticize me for, that your point is next to without basis.

 

 

people having been attacking the church for 2000 years.  people have been attacking the papacy for a long long time.  I highly doubt throughout history many scholars were unable to prove the church wrong but dairy girl on the internet is smarter than all and can prove the church wrong even though for 2000 years no one else has.



#7 Apotheoun

Apotheoun

    Phatmass Church Scholar Emeritus 2004-2006

  • Banned
  • 23,621 posts
  • Eastern Catholic

Posted 21 August 2013 - 01:04 PM

The members of the Joint International Commssion for Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church in the commission's working document (a.k.a. the Cyprus Document) noted the different approaches to primacy taken in the East and the West when it pointed out that the Eastern Churches have never accepted the idea that the bishop of Rome is the sole successor of St. Peter. In the Eastern Orthodox tradition all bishops share in the same Apostolic office, because they are all successors of the Apostles through episcopal consecration, i.e., successors of all the Apostles, which necessarily includes St. Peter. Perhaps that is why the Roman claims to primacy (or worse "supremacy") over the universal episcopate and the many local Churches are met with disbelief by the Orthodox. Clearly, the two sides view primacy and even Apostolic Succession differently.



#8 dairygirl4u2c

dairygirl4u2c

    dairy queen of phatmass

  • Phishy
  • 6,505 posts
  • Non-Denominational

Posted 21 August 2013 - 10:23 PM

people having been attacking the church for 2000 years.  people have been attacking the papacy for a long long time.  I highly doubt throughout history many scholars were unable to prove the church wrong but dairy girl on the internet is smarter than all and can prove the church wrong even though for 2000 years no one else has.

 

i'm not trying to disprove the CC. i'm not trying to establish anything that i'm sure hasn't been established before. i am though making known to others what the truth really is, and i am hoping that if i am missing something that i will be informed of it myself. things are not so clear in the west as it is in the east. most people don't care. i didn't just find all those quotes and ideas on one website but pieced them together myself. im sure others have found these before, or seen them, even if not all in one place. i dont claim anything that hasn't been established before, i don't deny it. 



#9 dairygirl4u2c

dairygirl4u2c

    dairy queen of phatmass

  • Phishy
  • 6,505 posts
  • Non-Denominational

Posted 22 August 2013 - 12:35 AM

it should also be noted, that 'binding and loosing', the same idea that Jesus gave to peter was also later given to the rest of the apostles.

 

Mat 18:18 "I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”



#10 Papist

Papist

    acta non verba

  • Church Militant
  • 10,824 posts
  • Catholic

Posted 22 August 2013 - 04:49 AM

 

i posted this at catholic answers, but any time i post something like this, it gets removed etc. they have very high censorship there. 

 

 
if you go to catholic.com and look at their quotes supporting the papacy, they and read them in a unifying sense only and not as the catholic church would have you believe, you see a different way to interpret them. and, if you look at their most striking quotes from cyprian and firmilian, you might want to defer to the catholics, until you read the context of those qutoes. 
and if you read more on early history, papal supermemcy is far from certain. you'd think it'd be clearer. 
 
St. Cyprian(200-258 a.d.):
"To all the apostles, after His resurrection, He gives an equal power...the other Apostles also were what Peter was, endued with an equal fellowship both of honor and power..."(On the Unity of the Catholic Church, 4)

Cyprian once called a council of 87 bishops in Carthage. The purpose of that council, according to The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. V, was:

When Stephen, bishop of Rome, had by his letters condemned the decree of the African Council on the Baptism of Heretics, Cyprian lost no time in holding another council at Carthage with a greater number of bishops. ("The Seventh Council of Carthage, Under Cyprian, Concerning the Baptism of Heretics")

That council declared, in the very first paragraph of its report of proceedings:

For neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another. (ibid.)"

If St. Cyprian believed that the bishop of Rome was pope and had primacy over all other bishops, he sure had a strange way of showing it!
 
Cyprian's colleague responded....
I (Firmilian) am justly indignant at this so open and manifest folly of Stephen, that he who so boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid, should introduce many other rocks and establish new buildings of many churches; maintaining that there is baptism in them by his authority (Epistle 74.17).
How great sin have you (Stephen) heaped up for yourself, when you cut yourself off from so many flocks! For it is yourself that you have cut off. Do not deceive yourself, since he is really the schismatic who has made himself an apostate from the communion of ecclesiastical unity. For while you think that all may be excommunicated by you, you have excommunicated yourself alone from all (Epistle 74.24). 

"was Cyprian Wrong?  No, Cyprian was right, and history remembers him, not Stephen. Numerous writings of St. Cyprian have been preserved, but none of Stephen's.

But our subject here is not whether Cyprian was right. The subject is whether Cyprian can be quoted as proof of papal primacy in the 3rd century church. And clearly, he cannot be.

Even if St. Cyprian was a heretic and dangerous man, the issue is that Catholic apologists are quoting him in defense of the bishop of Rome having the authority of a pope in Cyprian's time. Quoting him out of the context of his life and his other sayings is simply dishonest."
 

the easter controversy
victor is from about 100 AD .... Though Victor tried to change the stance of the churches of Asia Minor, and though he threatened to break fellowship with them if they didn�t change their stance, they ignored his threats. The church father and church historian Eusebius, in his church history (5:24), records part of a letter written to Victor by Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus. Polycrates explains that he and other church leaders will maintain their stance on the celebration of Easter, and that they aren�t intimidated by Victor�s threats:
"I, therefore, brethren, who have lived sixty-five years in the Lord, and have met with the brethren throughout the world, and have gone through every Holy Scripture, am not affrighted by terrifying words. For those greater than I have said �we ought to obey God rather than man.� "

---------------------

councils and popes

The Counsil of NIcea (325 a.d.)
In Canon 6, this council declared that each center was to be ruled by its own bishop and not by one head over all bishops. (Ante Nicene Father, 7:502, "Constitutions of the Holy Apostles")

Pope Gregory, 500AD
"I say it without the least hisitation, whoever calls himself the universal bishop, or desires this title, is by his pride the precursor of the anti-Christ because he thus attempts to raise himself above the others. The error into which he falls springs from pride equal to that of the anti-Christ. For as that wicked one wished to be regarded as exalted above other men, like a god, so likewise whosoever would call himself sole bishop exalteth himself above others"

" Your Holiness has been at pains to tell us that in addressing certain persons you no longer give them certain tiles that have no better origin than pride, using this phrase regarding me 'as you have commanded me.' I pray you let me never again here this word command; for i know who i am and who you are, by your position you are my brethren; by your virtue you are my fathers. I have, therefore, not commanded; I have only been careful to point out things which seemed to me useful. Still i do not find that your Holiness has perfectly remembered what i particularly wished to empress on your memory; FOR I SAID THAT YOU SHOULD NO MORE GIVE THAT TITLE TO ME THAN TO OTHERS; and lo! in the superscription of your letter, you gave to me, who have proscribed them, the VAINGLORIOUS TITLES OF UNIVERSAL AND POPE. May your sweet Holiness do so no more in the future. I beseech you; FOR YOU TAKE FROM YOURSELF WHAT YOU GIVE EXCESS TO ANOTHER. I do not esteem that an honor which caused my brethren to lose their own dignity. My honor is that of the whole Church. My honor is the unshakable firmness of my brethren. I consider myself truly honored when no one is denied the honor due to them. IF YOUR HOLINESS CALLS ME UNIVERSAL POPE, YOU DENY THAT YOU ARE YOURSELF WHAT I SHOULD BE ALTOGETHER. GOD FORBID! FAR FROM US BE WORDS THAT PUFF UP VANITY AND WOUND CHARITY."

The reason why he wrote this letter was to refute schisms that the bishop of rome had more authority then the other bishops. Would it make sense to think that gregory had authority over the other bishops after he just wrote this letter to the bishop of alexandria saying in so many words that he was equal to him? 

"It cannot be denied that if any one bishop be called universal, all the church crumbles if that universal one fall"

--------------------

St. Jerome (342-420 a.d.)
"Wherever a bishop may be whether at Rome or at Eugubium, at Constantinople or at Rhegium, at Alexandria or at Thanis, he is of the same worth...for all of them are the successors of the apostles."

St. Ambrose of Milan (`300): "He (St. Peter), then, who before was silent, to teach us that we ought not to repeat the words of the impious, this one, I say, when he heard, 'But who do you say I am,' immediately, not unmindful of his station, exercised his primacy, that is, the primacy of confession, not of honor; the primacy of belief, not of rank. This, then, is Peter, who has replied for the rest of the Apostles; rather, before the rest of men...." [Saint Ambrose, The Sacrament of the Incarnation of Our Lord, IV.32-V.34].

Newman said the alternative unifying thory is a formidable belief. he said the chruch grew like an acorn tree. whether it grew through God's power into what it is now, or by man's power, he said early history could be interpreted either way. the reason he was saying this is because people were dissing the chuch because the early text is so ambiguos, and he wanted them to realize the organic nature of the church: even if it were true, it's not gonna just spring up; if you were Peter, you wouldn't just say hey i'm infallible, watch out; it's be more natural. if it were true, i'm sure he had a time coming to grips with what it was... and i'm not even sure, even if the chruch is true,, whether he would have to even know or did know the extent of his power. Newman was resistant of hte first vaitcan council to vote yea on infallibilty because of ehse historical difficulties, as he put it, even though it's generally believed he himself believed in it. he was afraid of how outsiders would take the catholic church.

 

 

Please, if you would. In one clear sentence, can you state your assertion?



#11 havok579257

havok579257

    PM Pham

  • Church Militant
  • 2,816 posts
  • Catholic

Posted 22 August 2013 - 09:57 AM

it should also be noted, that 'binding and loosing', the same idea that Jesus gave to peter was also later given to the rest of the apostles.

 

Mat 18:18 "I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

 

 

no other apostle was given the keys to the kingdom of heaven.  no other apostle was told Jesus will build his church on him.  no other apostle was told to feed his flock.  He also told Peter to bring the apostles back after his death.

 

it really simple dairy.  the catholic church was the only true Christian church around for so long.  every other church split off from the catholic church.  so you tell me what sounds more likely:

 

1. the catholic church is the one true church and everyone split off from it, thus getting farther from the true truth.

 

2. the catholic church is not the true church of Christ so essentially for 1000 years if your orthodox or 1500 years if your protestant the only church of Christ on earth was wrong.  So essentially for 1500 years the whole world was getting it wrong but then incredibly some reformers came along and got it right.  They would have to be smarter than all the Saints before them and even those who lived during the time of the apostles.  So the world had been in absolute darkness for 1500 years and more than likely no one made it to heaven during this time.

 

 

 

so really which is more plausible?  I mean honestly?  do you really think God would let his church disappear from the world for 1500 years? 



#12 MarysLittleFlower

MarysLittleFlower

    PM Super Alien

  • Chummy Commoner
  • 1,102 posts
  • Catholic

Posted 22 August 2013 - 12:02 PM

it should also be noted, that 'binding and loosing', the same idea that Jesus gave to peter was also later given to the rest of the apostles.

 

Mat 18:18 "I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

 

but only Peter was called the rock...... and there was the sentence with the keys. Take a look at this article, the part about the Old Testament: http://www.catholic-...m/pope/hahn.asp



#13 Seven77

Seven77

    To Live is Christ!

  • Church Militant
  • 7,365 posts

Posted 22 August 2013 - 12:07 PM

Alex, I choose "Go milk some cows and stop speculating" for $1000.



#14 MarysLittleFlower

MarysLittleFlower

    PM Super Alien

  • Chummy Commoner
  • 1,102 posts
  • Catholic

Posted 22 August 2013 - 12:12 PM

There's also this article: http://catholicbridg..._peter_rock.php



#15 LouisvilleFan

LouisvilleFan

    I Can Change My Own Title Now

  • Chummy Commoner
  • 4,324 posts
  • Catholic

Posted 24 August 2013 - 10:32 AM

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



#16 Apotheoun

Apotheoun

    Phatmass Church Scholar Emeritus 2004-2006

  • Banned
  • 23,621 posts
  • Eastern Catholic

Posted 24 August 2013 - 02:55 PM

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.



#17 linate

linate

    Lurker

  • n00b
  • 24 posts
  • Non-Denominational

Posted 11 September 2013 - 05:53 PM

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.



#18 havok579257

havok579257

    PM Pham

  • Church Militant
  • 2,816 posts
  • Catholic

Posted 12 September 2013 - 12:38 AM

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?



#19 tomthetwin

tomthetwin

    Lurker

  • n00b
  • 5 posts

Posted 16 September 2013 - 05:21 PM

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



#20 dairygirl4u2c

dairygirl4u2c

    dairy queen of phatmass

  • Phishy
  • 6,505 posts
  • Non-Denominational

Posted 13 July 2014 - 08:24 AM

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).

 






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users