Jump to content


Photo
* * * - - 2 votes

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


61 replies to this topic

#21 dairygirl4u2c

dairygirl4u2c

    dairy queen of phatmass

  • Phishy
  • 6,486 posts
  • Non-Denominational

Posted 13 July 2014 - 08:28 AM

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)

 

 

 



#22 dairygirl4u2c

dairygirl4u2c

    dairy queen of phatmass

  • Phishy
  • 6,486 posts
  • Non-Denominational

Posted 13 July 2014 - 08:54 AM

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.



#23 Credo in Deum

Credo in Deum

    PM Pham

  • Church Militant
  • 1,993 posts
  • Catholic

Posted 13 July 2014 - 09:18 AM

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 croutons 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, 13 July 2014 - 09:19 AM.


#24 dairygirl4u2c

dairygirl4u2c

    dairy queen of phatmass

  • Phishy
  • 6,486 posts
  • Non-Denominational

Posted 13 July 2014 - 01:37 PM

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/...nts_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...hers/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)

 

 



#25 dairygirl4u2c

dairygirl4u2c

    dairy queen of phatmass

  • Phishy
  • 6,486 posts
  • Non-Denominational

Posted 13 July 2014 - 01:54 PM

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.



#26 dairygirl4u2c

dairygirl4u2c

    dairy queen of phatmass

  • Phishy
  • 6,486 posts
  • Non-Denominational

Posted 13 July 2014 - 02:05 PM

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, 13 July 2014 - 02:09 PM.


#27 dairygirl4u2c

dairygirl4u2c

    dairy queen of phatmass

  • Phishy
  • 6,486 posts
  • Non-Denominational

Posted 13 July 2014 - 03:27 PM

 

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 – 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]

 



#28 dairygirl4u2c

dairygirl4u2c

    dairy queen of phatmass

  • Phishy
  • 6,486 posts
  • Non-Denominational

Posted 13 July 2014 - 03:33 PM

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



#29 dairygirl4u2c

dairygirl4u2c

    dairy queen of phatmass

  • Phishy
  • 6,486 posts
  • Non-Denominational

Posted 13 July 2014 - 03:37 PM

"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, 13 July 2014 - 03:43 PM.


#30 dairygirl4u2c

dairygirl4u2c

    dairy queen of phatmass

  • Phishy
  • 6,486 posts
  • Non-Denominational

Posted 13 July 2014 - 04:06 PM

definitely makes for some dense reading, Pope John XXII:

 

http://www.francisca...um/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."



#31 dairygirl4u2c

dairygirl4u2c

    dairy queen of phatmass

  • Phishy
  • 6,486 posts
  • Non-Denominational

Posted 13 July 2014 - 04:15 PM

 

Who originally came up with the idea of papal infallibility? It was the creation of Peter Olivi, a Franciscan who was more than once accused of heresy (an auspicious parent for the concept of infallibility, wouldn't you say?). His reason for attempting to limit papal power seems to have been to prevent future popes from rescinding a ruling favorable to Franciscans made by Pope Nicholas III (1277-1280). Nicholas was willing to go along with this idea, but later popes rejected it outright. For example, Pope John XXII (1316-1334) went so far as to call it "...a work of the devil...the Father of Lies." and in 1324 actually issued a papal bull condemning it as heresy.

 

i'm not sure if 'work of the devil' and that sort of language actually came from Pope John. at least, i don't see it in that encyclical. i wonder if it is something Hans Kung said to paraphrase and others misconstrue it? needs looked into



#32 dairygirl4u2c

dairygirl4u2c

    dairy queen of phatmass

  • Phishy
  • 6,486 posts
  • Non-Denominational

Posted 13 July 2014 - 04:21 PM

One estimate had Pius's support at only about 50 bishops at the opening of the First Vatican Council with about 130 opposed and the rest undecided (Of 1050 bishops and others eligible, 800 attended the council, half of them representing European dioceses, and a majority of the rest, European missions abroad. The Americas had 100 representatives).

 

 

 

Pius stacked the council. There were 96 consulting positions, and among them 59 were filled by Italians (his biggest supporters) and just 37 to officials from other countries. Out of those last 37, a mere 6 had any proir experience working with the Vatican. Upon later reflection, many of the inexperienced members came to believe that their ill-fated appointments occurred only so that they could more easily be outmaneuvered by the pope's supporters. One, Bishop Joseph Karl Hefele wrote to a friend:

  • The longer I stay here, the more clearly I see the duplicity behind my appointment as consultor concilii. That was just Rome's way of hoodwinking the public with the appearance of neutrality. In reality, I have no idea what I'm supposed to be doing here.

 

 

As bad as this situation [the rules, logistics, and conditions of Vatican I] was, the pope exacerbated it by refusing to allow any copies of the speeches to be printed, preventing the cardinals from actually taking the time to study them carefully. Moreover, small group discussions in which issues could be debated and collectively reviewed were expressly prohibited — later, even large groups were banned.

 

Finally, only committee members were given permission to reply to a speech immediately after it had been given — coincidentally, all committee members supported infallibility. All these rules were instituted by Pius before the council met and without consulting the bishops - at prior councils the bishops set their own rules for debate and discussion.

 

 

Pius bullied the bishops directly. When one Archbishop Bathiarian of Armenia refused to support Pius' push for infallibility, Pius actually went so far as to try and get the papal police to arrest his personal secretary, sparking a small riot in the process. The other Armenian bishops were so frightened that they immediately asked permission to return home. They were denied, but two were smart enough to flee anyway.

 

 

 

Pius used financial pressure on the bishops. Well over 350 bishops attending the council were financially dependent upon the Vatican, without which they would be in dire straights. Pius did not hesitate to take clear advantage of this fact, threatening any who dare dissent with total cut-off from Vatican coffers. Enforcement was achieved by requiring all voting to be done in public - and this tactic worked more than probably any other.

With all of this going on, is it any wonder that many simply stopped attending meetings? Bishop Felix Dupanloupe wrote in his diary: "I'm not going to the Council anymore. The violence, the shamelessness, even more the falsity, vanity, and continual lying force me to keep my distance." Bishop Lecourtier from France, who was so discouraged that he threw his notes into the Tiber river and simply went home only to have his bishopric taken away for his trouble, complained:

  • An imposing minority, representing the faith of more than one hundred million Catholics, that is almost half the entire Church, is crushed beneath the yoke of a restrictive agenda, which is 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 absolute absence of discussion, response, objections, and the opportunity to demand explanations; by newspapers which have been encouraged to hunt the bishops down and to incite the clergy against them.

 

  •  

 

 

 

Pius may have been insane. He suffered from seizures his entire life and later developed memory loss and an inability to think clearly for long periods of time (by his own admission). By 1869, disease and stress had taken a serious toll on his psychological state and people noticed that he had become unpredictable, irrational, emotional and dictatorial — sometimes acting like a megalomaniac. Historian Ferdinand Gregorovius reported that 1870:

  • The pope recently got the urge to try out his infallibility...While out on a walk he called to a paralytic: "Get up and walk." The poor devil gave it a try and collapsed, which put [the pope] very much out of sorts. The anecdote has already been mentioned in newspapers. I really believe he's insane.

 

Ultramontanism is not Pius IX's only claim to fame — a number of important changes were made during his tenure. For example, in 1854 he declared the dogma of Immaculate Conception. According to this dogma, Mary was protected from all sin — even original sin — because she had been chosen to become the mother of Jesus. This was the first time in the history of the Catholic Church that a Pope had taken it upon himself to proclaim a doctrine or dogma without first consulting a council.

 

http://atheism.about...llibility_5.htm


Edited by dairygirl4u2c, 13 July 2014 - 04:36 PM.


#33 dairygirl4u2c

dairygirl4u2c

    dairy queen of phatmass

  • Phishy
  • 6,486 posts
  • Non-Denominational

Posted 13 July 2014 - 05:06 PM

very very well written. by the aformentioned writer mentioned in the wiki article... Brian Tierney.
he examines whether and how much Olivi innovated the understanding of infallibility. in it, he at first examines some of Aquanis's thoughts as a predecessor to Olivi and how much innovation if any occurred. and then examines Olivi's thoughts themselves.

http://www.mgh-bibli...e/b/b061822.pdf


Edited by dairygirl4u2c, 13 July 2014 - 05:33 PM.


#34 dairygirl4u2c

dairygirl4u2c

    dairy queen of phatmass

  • Phishy
  • 6,486 posts
  • Non-Denominational

Posted 13 July 2014 - 05:47 PM

so we see 1050 bishops were eligible to attend. of those 800 bishops attended, of those about 200 left. of the 600 that stayed, 60 abstained from voting. of the 540 left of those, 350 were financially dependent upon the vatican and the pope made it known he would retaliate against dissent. of those, the 110 left, they may have wanted infalliblity to be defined as it was. 

 

i do see that that article said it was only once estimated that 50 were supportive and 130 opposed. and the rest undecided. we can see that of those undecided, it must have been at least 60 were uninfluenced by at least money, and switched to supporting.



#35 dairygirl4u2c

dairygirl4u2c

    dairy queen of phatmass

  • Phishy
  • 6,486 posts
  • Non-Denominational

Posted 13 July 2014 - 11:20 PM

here is a lay catholic's response about the whole john v clement issue, that seems at odds with the above reference information. more needs looked into on this.

 


 

Pope St. Clement I was the third bishop of Rome (not counting St. Peter the Apostle). He died around the year 99.

His extant epistle, which scholars do accept as genuine (unlike 2 Clement), is an incredibly early witness to the organization of early Christianity. It's addressed to the church at Corinth.

At Corinth the Christian community had deposed certain presbyters (priests) unlawfully, and St. Clement was answering an appeal that was made to him to resolve the issue. In his letter, he explains that bishops and presbyters exercise apostolic authority, and that the deposition was unlawful. He informs them that the presbyters in question must be reinstated and obeyed.

Some cite it as evidence of universal papal jurisdiction at an extremely early date, since Corinth is far, far outside not only the church of Rome but even the whole Roman province. Another reason it's considered evidence of universal papal authority is that the Apostle Saint John was probably still alive at the time in Asia Minor, which is closer to Corinth than Rome. Yet though it would have been quicker to contact Saint John, they instead appealed for some reason to someone who wasn't even an Apostle - namely, the bishop of Rome, successor of St. Peter.

As a Catholic, I find these arguments convincing. In any case, regardless of where one stands, 1 Clement is an important historical document, one of the oldest writings of the Church Fathers.

 

 



#36 dairygirl4u2c

dairygirl4u2c

    dairy queen of phatmass

  • Phishy
  • 6,486 posts
  • Non-Denominational

Posted 19 July 2014 - 02:52 PM

the issue of apostle john and the bishop of rome is actually a pretty compelling argument, if only there weren't so many conflicting stories about it.

here's some more ideas to add to that.

"While in Ephesus, by order of the Roman emperor Domitian, John was exiled to an island called Patmos.  In what is known as the cave of the Apocalypse (located on this island), the sacred text of the book of Revelation was given to the apostle John by Jesus (it is here that John recorded what is written in the New Testament book of Revelation.)

........

 

When he was released from exile, he returned to Ephesus and lived till the time of the Roman emperor Trajan. 

It is said that John, "Founded and built churches throughout all Asia, and worn out by old age, died in the sixty-eight year after our Lord's passion and was buried near the same city (Ephesus)."

......

There is, also, a Church tradition which says that John was in Rome for a time."



#37 dairygirl4u2c

dairygirl4u2c

    dairy queen of phatmass

  • Phishy
  • 6,486 posts
  • Non-Denominational

Posted 24 July 2014 - 06:58 AM

this link has a ton of examples, of the bishop of rome being ignored, refuted, anathemized against etc etc in the early church

http://en.wikipedia....papal_supremacy



#38 superblue

superblue

    PM Peep

  • Chummy Commoner
  • 300 posts
  • Catholic

Posted 24 July 2014 - 07:06 AM

the only thing I originally read that I agreed with, was that the OP said Catholic Answers Forum has a lot of censorship issues and would have removed the thread.

 

But I didn't continue reading the thread due to I had already had my morning board meeting in my bathroom office, so there was no need for further reading material.



#39 dairygirl4u2c

dairygirl4u2c

    dairy queen of phatmass

  • Phishy
  • 6,486 posts
  • Non-Denominational

Posted 26 July 2014 - 08:18 PM

some highlights from Hans Kung's critical analysis of infallibility in his book

http://saunadebates....e-by-hans-kung/



#40 dairygirl4u2c

dairygirl4u2c

    dairy queen of phatmass

  • Phishy
  • 6,486 posts
  • Non-Denominational

Posted 26 July 2014 - 08:30 PM

good reference books


i'm suspicious of the last book, cause most so called 'contradictions' are not contradictions, or are not things taught as infallible.
 

 

A CONCISE HISTORY OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, Thomas Bokenkotter, Image Books, New York, 1979

A HANDBOOK ON THE PAPACY, William Shaw Kerr, Marshall Morgan & Scott, London, 1962 

A WOMAN RIDES THE BEAST, Dave Hunt Harvest House Eugene Oregon 1994 

ALL ONE BODY – WHY DON’T WE AGREE?  Erwin W Lutzer, Tyndale, Illinois, 1989 

ANTICHRIST IS HE HERE OR IS HE TO COME?  Protestant Truth Society, London  

APOLOGIA PRO VITA SUA, John Henry Newman (Cardinal), Everyman’s Library, London/New York, 1955 

BELIEVING IN GOD, PJ McGrath, Millington Books in Association with Wolfhound, Dublin, 1995 

BURNING TRUTHS, Basil Morahan, Western People Printing, Ballina, 1993 

CATHOLICISM, Richard P McBrien, HarperSanFrancisco, New York, 1994

CATHOLICISM AND CHRISTIANITY, Cecil John Cadoux, George Allen & Unwin Ltd, 1928  

CATHOLICISM AND FUNDAMENTALISM, Karl Keating, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 1988  

CHRISTIAN ORDER Number 12 Vol 35 Fr Paul Crane 53 Penerley Road, Catford, London, SE6 2LH

DAWN OR TWILIGHT? HM Carson, IVP, Leicester, 1976 

DIFFICULTIES, Mgr Ronald Knox and Sir Arnold Lunn, Eyre & Spottiswoode, London, 1958  

ENCOUNTERS OF THE FOURTH KIND, Dr RJ Hymers, Bible Voice, Inc, Van Nuys, CA, 1976 

FROM ROME TO CHRIST, J Ward, Irish Church Missions, Dublin  

FUTURIST OR HISTORICIST? Basil C Mowll, Protestant Truth Society, London 

HANDBOOK TO THE CONTROVERSY WITH ROME, Karl Von Hase, Vols 1 and 2, The Religious Tract Society, London, 1906  

HANS KUNG HIS WORK AND HIS WAY, Hermann Haring and Karl-Josef Kuschel, Fount-Collins, London, 1979  

HITLER’S POPE, THE SECRET HISTORY OF PIUS XII, John Cornwell, Viking, London, LONDON 1999  

HOW SURE ARE THE FOUNDATIONS?  Colin Badger, Wayside Press, Canada 

INFALLIBILITY IN THE CHURCH, Patrick Crowley, CTS, London, 1982 

INFALLIBLE?  Hans Kung, Collins, London, 1980 

IS THE PAPACY PREDICTED BY ST PAUL?  Bishop Christopher Wordsworth, The Harrison Trust, Kent, 1985  

LECTURES AND REPLIES, Thomas Carr, Archbishop of Melbourne, Melbourne, 1907 

NO LIONS IN THE HIERARCHY, Fr Joseph Dunn, Columba Press, Dublin, 1994 

PAPAL SIN, STRUCTURES OF DECEIT, Garry Wills, Darton Longman and Todd, London, 2000

PETER AND THE OTHERS, Rev FH Kinch MA, Nelson & Knox Ltd, Townhall Street, Belfast 

POPE FICTION, Patrick Madrid, Basilica Press, San Diego California 1999

PUTTING AWAY CHILDISH THINGS, Uta Ranke-Heinemann, HarperCollins, San Francisco, 1994  

REASON AND BELIEF, Brand Blanschard, George Allen & Unwin Ltd, London, 1974  

REASONS FOR HOPE, Editor Jeffrey A Mirus, Christendom College Press, Virginia, 1982 

ROMAN CATHOLIC CLAIMS, Charles Gore MA, Longmans, London, 1894  

ROMAN CATHOLIC OBJECTIONS ANSWERED, Rev H O Lindsay, John T Drought Ltd, Dublin  

ROMAN CATHOLICISM, Lorraine Boettner, Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, Phillipsburg, NJ, 1962  

SECRETS OF ROMANISM, Joseph Zacchello, Loizeaux Brothers, New Jersey, 1984 

ST PETER AND ROME, J B S, Irish Church Missions, Dublin 

THE CHURCH AND INFALLIBILITY, B C Butler, The Catholic Book Club, London, undated  

THE EARLY CHURCH, Henry Chadwick, Pelican, Middlesex, 1987

THE LATE GREAT PLANET EARTH, Hal Lindsay, Lakeland, London, 1974

THE PAPACY IN PROPHECY!  Christadelphian Press, West Beach S A, 1986  

THE PAPACY ITS HISTORY AND DOGMAS, Leopold D E Smith, Protestant Truth Society, London  

THE PETRINE CLAIMS OF ROME, Canon JE Oulton DD, John T Drought Ltd, Dublin  

THE PRIMITIVE FAITH AND ROMAN CATHOLIC DEVELOPMENTS, Rev John A Gregg, BD, APCK, Dublin, 1928 

THE SHE-POPE, Peter Stanford, William Hienemann, Random House, London, 1998 

THE VATICAN PAPERS, Nino Lo Bello, New English Library, Sevenoaks, Kent, 1982  

TRADITIONAL DOCTRINES OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH EXAMINED, Rev CCJ Butlin, Protestant Truth Society, London 

VICARS OF CHRIST, Peter de Rosa, Corgi, London, 1993  

WAS PETER THE FIRST POPE?  J Bredin, Evangelical Protestant Society, Belfast 

WHATEVER HAPPENED TO HEAVEN?, Dave Hunt, Harvest House, Eugene, Oregon, 1988 

 

NOTE: RECOMMENDED BOOK, ROME HAS SPOKEN

 

ROME HAS SPOKEN, A GUIDE TO FORGOTTEN PAPAL STATEMENTS AND HOW THEY HAVE CHANGED THROUGH THE CENTURIES, Maureen Fiedler and Linda Rabben (Editors), Crossroad Publishing, New York, 1998

 

This book is a goldmine for the person who wants to shake off the guilt of disobeying the pope.  It is liberty to the slavery the pope wants to subject them to.  It is basically a collection of hard to come by official Church texts that show that the popes did not always teach the same thing.

 

 






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users