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

[linate]

Quote

Cyprian

Cyprian did indeed speak of the “seat of Peter,” in Latin, the “cathedra Petri.” It was also very central to his view of church unity and authority. No one who broke unity with the cathedra Petri was truly in the Church. All of this is quite true. And beyond this, Cyprian spoke highly of the Roman see when defending Cornelius as a result of the Novationist schism in Rome. He rebuked those who rejected Cornelius’ position as the bishop of Rome. Despite this, Cyprian sent a sharp rebuke to Cornelius when he gave audience to men who had been deposed in North Africa.

But it is just here that we learn how important it is to study church history as a discipline, not as a mere tool to be used in polemic debate. We can assume out of generosity that when Mr. Keating wrote his book he actually believed that when Cyprian spoke of the “cathedra Petri” that Cyprian understood this phrase as a modern Roman Catholic would. That is, he may well have assumed that the “seat of Peter” was understood by everyone back then to refer to the bishop of Rome. However, all students of church history know differently. Cyprian (and the North African church as a whole for the span of centuries) believed the “chair of Peter” referred to all bishops in all churches across the world. Cyprian, for example, claimed to sit upon the “cathedra Petri” as did all bishops. For example, he wrote in Epistle XXVI:

Our Lord, whose precepts and admonitions we ought to observe, describing the honor of a bishop and the order of His Church, speaks in the Gospel, and says to Peter: ‘I say unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.’ Thence, through the changes of times and successions, the ordering of bishops and the plan of the Church flow onwards; so that the Church is founded upon the bishops, and every act of the Church is controlled by these same rulers (emphasis added).

This fact is recognized by Roman Catholic historians. Johannes Quasten, Catholic patristic scholar, commented, (Patrology, vol. 2, p. 375), “Thus he understands Matth. 16, 18 of the whole episcopate, the various members of which, attached to one another by the laws of charity and concord, thus render the Church universal a single body.” And a little later Quasten cites the words of an African Synod, led by Cyprian, which said:

No one among us sets himself up as a bishop of bishops, or by tyranny and terror forces his colleagues to compulsory obedience, seeing that every bishop in the freedom of his liberty and power possesses the right to his own mind and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another. We must all await the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who singly and alone has power both to appoint us to the government of his Church and to judge our acts therein (CSEL 3, 1, 436).

Quasten then comments:

From these words it is evident that Cyprian does not recognize a primacy of jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome over his colleagues. Nor does he think Peter was given power over the other apostles….No more did Peter claim it: ‘Even Peter, whom the Lord first chose and upon whom He built His Church, when Paul later disputed with him over circumcision, did not claim insolently any prerogative for himself, nor make any arrogant assumptions nor say that he had the primacy and ought to be obeyed’ (Epist. 71, 3).

Quasten goes on to note that Cyprian did see Rome as an important see, however,

…even in this letter he makes it quite clear that he does not concede to Rome any higher right to legislate for other sees because he expects her not to interfere in his own diocese ‘since to each separate shepherd has been assigned one portion of the flock to direct and govern and render hereafter an account of his ministry to the Lord’ (Epist. 59,14).

But there is more, much more, from Roman Catholic writers. Michael Winter writes in St. Peter and the Popes (Wesport: Greenwood, 1960, pp. 47-48):

Cyprian used the Petrine text of Matthew to defend episcopal authority, but many later theologians, influenced by the papal connections of the text, have interpreted Cyprian in a pro-papal sense which was alien to his thought…..Cyprian would have used Matthew 16 to defend the authority of any bishop, but since he happened to employ it for the sake of the Bishop of Rome, it created the impression that he understood it as referring to papal authority…Catholics as well as Protestants are now generally agreed that Cyprian did not attribute a superior authority to Peter.

Robert Eno, another historian, writes in The Rise of the Papacy (Wilmington: Michael Glazer, 1990), p. 58, “The Chair of Peter…belongs to each lawful bishop in his own see. Cyprian holds the Chair of Peter in Carthage and Cornelius in Rome….You must hold to this unity if you are to remain in the Church.” And finally, Jesuit Klaus Schatz writes in Papal Primacy, p. 20, “Cyprian regarded every bishop as the successor of Peter, holder of the keys to the kingdom of heaven and possessor of the power to bind and loose. For him, Peter embodied the original unity of the Church and the episcopal office, but in principle these were also present in every bishop.”

But there is more. Cornelius’ successor, Stephen, was an arrogant prelate. Full of himself, he sowed discord amongst the churches. Cyprian severely reprimanded him, as did others. When Stephen attempted to meddle in the affairs of the North African churches, including overturning the deposing of one Basilides, who then went to Rome to attempt to find assistance in his cause, Cyprian and the North Africans rejected his attempts. Cyprian wrote,

Neither can it rescind an ordination rightly perfected, that Basilides, after the detection of his crimes, and the baring of his conscience even by his own confession, went to Rome and deceived Stephen our colleague, placed at a distance, and ignorant of what had been done, and of the truth, to canvass that he might be replaced unjustly in the episcopate from which he had been righteously deposed.

Deceived the bishop of Rome? The source of infallible and apostolic truth could be deceived about the orthodoxy of a man so as to improperly guide the church in regards to its leadership and teaching? How could such be? Obviously, the church of this day had no concept of an infallible Pope, nor any concept that the bishop of Rome was the universal head of the Church. Any reading of the correspondence between Cyprian and Firmilian, bishop of Caesarea (such as Epistle LXXIV, wherein Firmilian accuses Stephen of numerous errors, including transmitting false “tradition”), makes it very clear: neither believed as Karl Keating would like his readers to think they did.

Now we noted above that at the time Karl Keating wrote Catholicism and Fundamentalism, it is quite possible he was ignorant of the situation. He may, like so many other Roman Catholic apologists, have assumed that “chair of Peter” always meant the Roman bishop. He had probably never read much of Cyprian for himself, and was just going on what others had told him. But, the fact of the matter is, that is no longer an excuse. In the years since the publication of the work, Keating has been shown his error, multiple times. And yet his book, and his organization, continues to promote the myth that Cyprian was a believer in Papal infallibility. A glowing Roman Catholic myth.

 

[linate]

Pope Sixtus III “all know that to assent to [the Bishop of Rome’s] decision is to assent to St. Peter, who lives in his successors and whose faith fails not.”(433 AD)

[linate]

For Cyprian, "the Bishop of Rome is the direct heir of Peter, whereas the others are heirs only indirectly", and he insisted that "the Church of Rome is the root and matrix of the Catholic Church"

"Pope Boniface I (418–422) stated that the church of Rome stood to the churches throughout the world "as the head to the members",[63] a statement that seems to have been already made by Pope Siricius[63] and was repeated by the delegates of Pope Leo I to the Council of Chalcedon in 451" 

the council of constantinople puts that city second after rome in primacy of honor. a point that the east did understand rome as a primacy of honor. 

Pope Gelasius I (492–496) stated: "The see of blessed Peter the Apostle has the right to unbind what has been bound by sentences of any pontiffs whatever, in that it has the right to judge the whole church. Neither is it lawful for anyone to judge its judgment, seeing that canons have willed that it might be appealed to from any part of the world, but that no one may be allowed to appeal from it.[71]

that looks like the pope's response when someone tried to define papal infallibility a thousand years after Jesus. that is to say that pope then and the pope above seem to think the pope has such authority that past popes binding mean nothing. 

there's lots more here where i should have read more on papal primarcy and its development:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_primacy

[linate]

here are some orthodox dudes talking about cyprian, and moving onto the structure of church authority generally. they talk in the same way i do. there are some very smart dudes posting there.

http://www.monachos.net/conversation/topic/4863-upon-this-rock-i-build-my-church-st-cyprian-orthodox-and-roman-catholic-views/
 

Pope Leo
"The connection of the whole body makes all alike healthy, all alike beautiful: and this connection requires the unanimity indeed of the whole body, but it especially demands harmony among the priests."

Apostolic Canon 34
"The bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and account him as their head, and do nothing of consequence without his consent; but each may do those things only which concern his own parish, and the country places which belong to it. But neither let him (who is the first) do anything without the consent of all; for so there will be unanimity, and God will be glorified through the Lord in the Holy Spirit."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canons_of_the_Apostles

 

Edited February 1, 2018 by linate

[linate]

"retardedignorantheretic4u2c"

ha. he zinged you good dairygirl. consider yourself officially owned.

oh wait. what, we're actually s'pose to take his sh*t seriously? i guess i'll be condemned for that, too.