For The Sake Of

[jeffpugh]

Anomaly the problem with that statement is that we do have the East. There are indeed Catholic bishops watching over the Eastern rite who DO ACKNOWLEDGE the Pope. I think Dairygirl found a good quote there too...

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Sacred Music Man' post='1212580' date='Mar 12 2007, 01:44 PM']Anomaly the problem with that statement is that we do have the East. There are indeed Catholic bishops watching over the Eastern rite who DO ACKNOWLEDGE the Pope. I think Dairygirl found a good quote there too...[/quote]Not much of the East at all. So your Pope was wrong when he said the Body of Christ is breathing without both It's lungs?

Roman Catholics come up with nothing substantial to defend or prove the Pope has the Charism of Infalliblilty. That whole idea is relatively new to Catholicism and really only was solidified by Roman Catholics to justify their part of the East/West Schism (which was caused originally by human politics using Religion as a means).

[Anomaly]

No rebuttal?
Can't provide evidence of the idea of Papal Infallibillity from Early Church Fathers prior to 500AD?

[KnightofChrist]

All below are from the Early Church Fathers prior to 500AD... Have fun reading

[url="http://www.scripturecatholic.com/primacy_of_peter.html"]Primacy of Peter’s Apostolic See [/url]

"The church of God which sojourns at Rome to the church of God which sojourns at Corinth ... But if any disobey the words spoken by him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger." Clement of Rome, Pope, 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, 1,59:1 (c. A.D. 96).

"Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Mast High God the Father, and of Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is sanctified and enlightened by the will of God, who farmed all things that are according to the faith and love of Jesus Christ, our God and Saviour; the Church which presides in the place of the region of the Romans, and which is worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of credit, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love..." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Romans, Prologue (A.D. 110).

"There is extant also another epistle written by Dionysius to the Romans, and addressed to Soter, who was bishop at that time. We cannot do better than to subjoin some passages from this epistle…In this same epistle he makes mention also of Clement's epistle to the Corinthians, showing that it had been the custom from the beginning to read it in the church. His words are as follows: To-day we have passed the Lord's holy day, in which we have read your epistle. From it, whenever we read it, we shall always be able to draw advice, as also from the former epistle, which was written to us through Clement.' Dionysius of Corinth, To Pope Soter (A.D. 171).

"Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:3:2 (A.D. 180).

"A question of no small importance arose at that time. For the parishes of all Asia, as from an older tradition, held that the fourteenth day of the moon, on which day the Jews were commanded to sacrifice the lamb, should be observed as the feast of the Saviour's Passover. It was therefore necessary to end their fast on that day, whatever day of the week it should happen to be. But it was not the custom of the churches in the rest of the world to end it at this time, as they observed the practice which, from apostolic tradition, has prevailed to the present time, of terminating the fast on no other day than on that of the resurrection of our Saviour...Thereupon Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the common unity the parishes of all Asia, with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox; and he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicated.” Pope Victor & Easter (c. A.D. 195).

"And he says to him again after the resurrection, 'Feed my sheep.' It is on him that he builds the Church, and to him that he entrusts the sheep to feed. And although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, thus establishing by his own authority the source and hallmark of the (Church's) oneness. No doubt the others were all that Peter was, but a primacy is given to Peter, and it is (thus) made clear that there is but one flock which is to be fed by all the apostles in common accord. If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church? This unity firmly should we hold and maintain, especially we bishops, presiding in the Church, in order that we may approve the episcopate itself to be the one and undivided." Cyprian, The Unity of the Church, 4-5 (A.D. 251-256).

"After such things as these, moreover, they still dare--a false bishop having been appointed for them by, heretics--to set sail and to bear letters from schismatic and profane persons to the throne of Peter, and to the chief church whence priestly unity takes its source; and not to consider that these were the Romans whose faith was praised in the preaching of the apostle, to whom faithlessness could have no access." Cyprian, To Cornelius, Epistle 54/59:14 (A.D. 252).

”The reason for your absence was both honorable and imperative, that the schismatic wolves might not rob and plunder by stealth nor the heretical dogs bark madly in the rapid fury nor the very serpent, the devil, discharge his blasphemous venom. So it seems to us right and altogether fitting that priests of the Lord from each and every province should report to their head, that is, to the See of Peter, the Apostle." Council of Sardica, To Pope Julius (A.D. 342).

"And this case likewise is to be provided for, that if in any province a bishop has some matter against his brother and fellow-bishop, neither of the two should call in as arbiters bishops from another province. But if perchance sentence be given against a bishop in any matter and he supposes his case to be not unsound but good, in order that the question may be reopened, let us, if it seem good to your charity, honour the memory of Peter the Apostle, and let those who gave judgment write to Julius, the bishop of Rome, so that, if necessary, the case may be retried by the bishops of the neighbouring provinces and let him appoint arbiters; but if it cannot be shown that his case is of such a sort as to need a new trial, let the judgment once given not be annulled, but stand good as before." Council of Sardica, Canon III (A.D. 343-344).

"Bishop Gaudentius said: If it seems good to you, it is necessary to add to this decision full of sincere charity which thou hast pronounced, that if any bishop be deposed by the sentence of these neighbouring bishops, and assert that he has fresh matter in defense, a new bishop be not settled in his see, unless the bishop of Rome judge and render a decision as to this." Council of Sardica, Canon IV (A.D. 343-344).

"Bishop Hosius said: Decreed, that if any bishop is accused, and the bishops of the same region assemble and depose him from his office, and he appealing, so to speak, takes refuge with the most blessed bishop of the Roman church, and he be willing to give him a hearing, and think it right to renew the examination of his case, let him be pleased to write to those fellow-bishops who are nearest the province that they may examine the particulars with care and accuracy and give their votes on the matter in accordance with the word of truth. And if any one require that his case be heard yet again, and at his request it seem good to move the bishop of Rome to send presbyters a latere, let it be in the power of that bishop, according as he judges it to be good and decides it to be right that some be sent to be judges with the bishops and invested with his authority by whom they were sent.” Council of Sardica, Canon V (A.D. 343-344).

"Supposing, as you assert, that some offence rested upon those persons, the case ought to have been conducted against them, not after this manner, but according to the Canon of the Church. Word should have been written of it to us all, that so a just sentence might proceed from all. For the sufferers were Bishops, and Churches of no ordinary note, but those which the Apostles themselves had governed in their own persons…For what we have received from the blessed Apostle Peter, that I signify to you; and I should not have written this, as deeming that these things were manifest unto all men, had not these proceedings so disturbed us." Athanasius, Pope Julius to the Eusebians, Defense Against the Arians, 35 (A.D. 347).

"For Dionysius, Bishop of Rome, having written also against those who said that the Son of God was a creature and a created thing, it is manifest that not now for the first time but from of old the heresy of the Arian adversaries of Christ has been anathematised by all. And Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria, making his defense concerning the letter he had written, appears in his turn as neither thinking as they allege, nor having held the Arian error at all." Athanasius, Dionysius of Rome, 13 (A.D. 352).

"You cannot deny that you know that in the city of Rome the Chair was first conferred on Peter, in which the prince of all the Apostles, Peter, sat…in which Chair unity should be preserved by all, so that he should now be a schismatic and a sinner who should set up another Chair against that unique one." Optatus of Mileve, The Schism of Donatists, 2:2-3 (c. A.D. 367).

"For the good of unity Blessed Peter deserved to be preferred before the rest, and alone received the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, that he might communicate them to the rest." Optatus of Mileve, The Schism of Donatists, 7:3 (c.A.D. 367).

"No prejudice could arise from the number of bishops gathered at Ariminum, since it is well known that neither the bishop of the Romans, whose opinion ought before all others to have been waited for, nor Vincentius, whose stainless episcopate had lasted so many years, nor the rest, gave in their adhesion to such doctrines. And this is the more significant, since, as has been already said, the very men who seemed to be tricked into surrender, themselves, in their wiser moments, testified their disapproval." Pope Damasus [regn. A.D. 366-384], About Council at Arminum, Epistle 1 (A.D. 371).

"…I think it my duty to consult the chair of Peter, and to turn to a church whose faith has been praised by Paul…The fruitful soil of Rome, when it receives the pure seed of the Lord, bears fruit an hundredfold…My words are spoken to the successor of the fisherman, to the disciple of the cross. As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built! This is the house where alone the paschal lamb can be rightly eaten. This is the ark of Noah, and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails.” Jerome, To Pope Damasus, Epistle 15:1-2 (A.D. 375).

"But he was not so eager as to lay aside caution. He called the bishop to him, and esteeming that there can be no true thankfulness except it spring from true faith, he enquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is, with the Roman Church?" Ambrose, The death of his brother Satyrus, 1:47 (A.D. 378).

"Your grace must be besought not to permit any disturbance of the Roman Church, the head of the whole Roman World and of the most holy faith of the Apostles, for from thence flow out to all (churches) the bonds of sacred communion." Ambrose, To Emperor Gratian, Epistle 11:4 (A.D. 381).

"To your inquiry we do not deny a legal reply, because we, upon whom greater zeal for the Christian religion is incumbent than upon the whole body, out of consideration for our office do not have the liberty to dissimulate, nor to remain silent. We carry the weight of all who are burdened; nay rather the blessed apostle Peter bears these in us, who, as we trust, protects us in all matters of his administration, and guards his heirs." Pope Sircius [regn. A.D. 384-399], To Himerius, Epistle 1 (A.D. 385).

"Or rather, if we hear him here, we shall certainly see him hereafter, if not as standing near him, yet see him we certainly shall, glistening near the Throne of the king. Where the Cherubim sing the glory, where the Seraphim are flying, there shall we see Paul, with Peter, and as a chief and leader of the choir of the Saints, and shall enjoy his generous love. For if when here he loved men so, that when he had the choice of departing and being with Christ, he chose to be here...” John Chrysostom, Epistle to the Romans, Homily 32:24 (c. A.D. 391).

"Number the bishops from the See of Peter itself. And in that order of Fathers see who has succeeded whom. That is the rock against which the gates of hell do not prevail" Augustine, Psalm against the Party of Donatus, 18 (A.D. 393).

"I am held in the communion of the Catholic Church by...and by the succession of bishops from the very seat of Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection commended His sheep to be fed up to the present episcopate." Augustine, Against the Letter of Mani, 5 (A.D. 395).

“Carthage was also near the countries over the sea, and distinguished by illustrious renown, so that it had a bishop of more than ordinary influence, who could afford to disregard a number of conspiring enemies because he saw himself joined by letters of communion to the Roman Church, in which the supremacy of an apostolic chair has always flourished.” Augustine, To Glorius et.al, Epistle 43:7 (A.D. 397).

"The chair of the Roman Church, in which Peter sat, and in which Anastasius sits today." Augustine, Against the Letters of Petillian, 2:51 (A.D. 402).

“In making inquiry with respect to those things that should be treated with all solicitude by bishops, and especially by a true and just and Catholic Council, by preserving, as you have done, the example of ancient tradition, and by being mindful of ecclesiastical discipline, you have truly strengthened the vigour of our religion, no less now in consulting us than before in passing sentence. For you decided that it was proper to refer to our judgment, knowing what is due to the Apostolic See, since all we who are set in this place, desire to follow the Apostle from the very episcopate and whole authority of this name is derived. Following in his footsteps, we know how to condemn the evil and to approve the good.” Pope Innocent [regn A.D. 401-417], To the Council of Carthage, Epistle 29 (A.D. 417).

"Although the tradition of the Fathers has attributed to the Apostolic See so great authority that none would dare to contest its judgments...For (Peter) himself has care over all the Churches, and above all that in which he sat nor does he suffer any of its privileges or decisions to be shaken" Pope Zosimus [regn A.D. 417-418 ],To Aurelius and the Council of Carthage, Epistle 12 (A.D. 418).

"For it has never been allowed to discuss again what has once been decided by the Apostolic See." Pope Boniface [regn A.D. 418-422], To Rufus Bishop of Thessalonica, Epistle 13 (A.D. 422).

"The rising pestilence was first cut short by Rome, the see of Peter, which having become the head to the world of the pastoral office, holds by religion whatever it holds not by arms." Prosper of Aquitaine, Song on the Enemies of Grace, 1 (A.D. 429).

"Joining to yourself, therefore, the sovereign of our See, and assuming our place with authority, you will execute this sentence with accurate rigour: that within ten days, counted from the day of your notice, he shall condemn his [Nestorius'] false teachings in a written confession." Pope Celestine [regn. A.D. 422-432], To Cyril of Alexandria, Epistle 11 (A.D. 430).

"The Holy Synod said: 'Since most impious Nestorius will not obey our citation, and has not received the most holy and God-fearing bishops whom we sent to him, we have necessarily betaken ourselves to the examination of his impieties; and having apprehended from his letters, and from his writings, and from his recent sayings in this metropolis, which have been reported, that his opinions and teachings are impious, we being necessarily compelled thereto by the canons and by the letter of our most holy father and colleague, Celestine, bishop of the Roman Church, with many tears, have arrived at the following sentence against him:--'Our Lord Jesus Christ, Who has been blasphemed by him, defines by this present most holy synod that the same Nestorius is deprived of episcopal dignity and of all sacredotal intercourse." Council of Ephesus, Session I (A.D. 431).

"Philip, presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See, said: There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: Our holy and most blessed Pope Celestine the bishop is according to due order his successor and holds his place...Accordingly the decision of all churches is firm, for the priests of the eastern and western churches are present...Wherefore Nestorius knows that he is alienated from the communion of the priests of the Catholic Church." Council of Ephesus, Session III (A.D. 431).

"Peter in his successors has delivered what he received." Pope Sixtus III [regn. A.D. 432-440], To John of Antioch, Epistle 6 (A.D. 433).

"For he [Pope Sixtus] wrote what was in accord with the holy synod [Council of Ephesus], and confirmed all of its acts, an is agreement with us." Cyril of Alexandria, To Acacius of Meletine, Epistle 40 (A.D. 434).

“Once on a time then, Agrippinus, bishop of Carthage, of venerable memory, held the doctrine--and he was the first who held it --that Baptism ought to be repeated, contrary to the divine canon, contrary to the rule of the universal Church, contrary to the customs and institutions of our ancestors. This innovation drew after it such an amount of evil, that it not only gave an example of sacrilege to heretics of all sorts, but proved an occasion of error to certain Catholics even. When then all men protested against the novelty, and the priesthood everywhere, each as his zeal prompted him, opposed it, Pope Stephen of blessed memory, Prelate of the Apostolic See, in conjunction indeed with his colleagues but yet himself the foremost, withstood it, thinking it right, I doubt not, that as he exceeded all others in the authority of his place, so he should also in the devotion of his faith. In fine, in an epistle sent at the time to Africa, he laid down this rule: Let there be no innovation--nothing but what has been handed down.’” Vincent of Lerins, Commonitory for the Antiquity and Universality of the Catholic Faith, 6 (A.D. 434).

"And since these heretics were trying to bring the Apostolic See round their view, African councils of holy bishops also did their best to persuade the holy Pope of the city (first the venerable Innocent, and afterwards his successor Zosimus) that this heresy was to be abhorred and condemned by Catholic faith. And these bishops so great a See successively branded them, and cut them off from the members of the Church, giving letters to the African Churches in the West, and to the Churches of the East, and declared that they were to be anathematised and avoided by all Catholics. The judgment pronounced upon them by the Catholic Church of God was heard and followed also by the most pious Emperor Ho they had wandered, and are yet returning, as the truth of the right faith becomes known against this detestable error." Possidius, Life of Augustine, 18 (A.D. 437).

"After the reading of the foregoing epistle [the Tome of Pope Leo], the most reverend bishops cried out: This is the faith of the fathers, this is the faith of the Apostles. So we all believe, thus the orthodox believe. Anathema to him who does not thus believe. Peter has spoken thus through Leo [regn. A.D. 440-461]. So taught the Apostles. Piously and truly did Leo teach, so taught Cyril. Everlasting be the memory of Cyril. Leo and Cyril taught the same thing, anathema to him who does not so believe. This is the true faith. Those of us who are orthodox thus believe. This is the faith of the fathers. Why were not these things read at Ephesus [i.e. at the heretical synod held there]? These are the things Dioscorus hid away." Council of Chalcedon, Session II (A.D. 451).

"Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod together with the thrice blessed and all-glorious Peter the Apostle, who is the rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith, hath stripped him of the episcopate, and hath alienated from him all hieratic worthiness. Therefore let this most holy and great synod sentence the before mentioned Dioscorus to the canonical penalties." Council of Chalcedon, Session III (A.D. 451).

"The great and holy and universal Synod...in the metropolis of Chalcedon...to the most holy and blessed archbishop of Rome, Leo...being set as the mouthpiece unto all of the blessed Peter, and imparting the blessedness of his Faith unto all...and besides all this he [Dioscorus] stretched forth his fury even against him who had been charged with the custody of the vine by the Savior, we mean of course your holiness..." Pope Leo the Great, Chalcdeon to Pope Leo, Epistle 98:1-2 (A.D. 451).

"Who does not cease to preside in his see, who will doubt that he rules in every part of the world." Pope Leo the Great [regn. A.D.440-461], Sermon 5 (A.D ante 461).

“For the solidity of that faith which was praised in the chief of the Apostles is perpetual: and as that remains which Peter believed in Christ, so that remains which Christ instituted in Peter...The dispensation of Truth therefore abides, and the blessed Peter persevering in the strength of the Rock, which he has received, has not abandoned the helm of the Church, which he undertook. For he was ordained before the rest in such a way that from his being called the Rock, from his being pronounced the Foundation, from his being constituted the Doorkeeper of the kingdom of heaven, from his being set as the Umpire to bind and to loose, whose judgments shall retain their validity in heaven, from all these mystical titles we might know the nature of his association with Christ. And still to-day he more fully and effectually performs what is entrusted to him, and carries out every part of his duty and charge in Him and with Him, through Whom he has been glorified. And so if anything is rightly done and rightly decreed by us, if anything is won from the mercy of God by our daily supplications, it is of his work and merits whose power lives and whose authority prevails in his See.” Pope Leo the Great [regn. A.D.440-461], Sermon 3:2-3 (A.D ante 461).

[Anomaly]

Knight,
Thank you. I will review these and respond appropriately. A quick review of them does not support any reasonable defense of Papal Infallibility which is an extension of the leadership role. However, to be fair, they excerpts require more than a 30 second reading. Give me a day.

[dairygirl4u2c]

my approach to such copy and pasting of allegeld papal proof is to copy and paste my own response.

to the issue of early writings. i've said it before, but it does bear saying again as no one else has. if you look at all those early church writings, even the ones from clement, and read them in the spirit of a unifying church, not necessarily in any way infallible, you'll see a different way to interpret history. ie just a unifying and persuasive authority.

the only possibly convincing quotes are from firmilian and cyprian. firmilian was not a believer, but in fact a non-believer in the autority of rome. catholics assert rome's assertion of power indicates infalliblility etc, but it could just mean he knows he's a unifyer. cyprian... there's the cyprianic theory that said that the church was suppose to be one, but that doesn't necessarily imply what catholics say it does. i do know cardinal newman talks about the cyprianic theory briefly in that sense before he became catholic.

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 he himself believed in it. he was afraid of how outsiders would take the catholic church.

when i look at the question of whether hte orthodox broke away or who did. i see it exemplified by the pope steven (or was it victor?) controversy where the guy said said to the pope who excommunicated his people "in excommunicating us from you, you've excommunicated yourself from all". again, it goes back to how you take the pope's assertion to excommunicate. (remember too that many of the bishops back then were called "pope") it's all a matter of perspective.

lastly, not only could the dissenters at vatican I dissent, the orthodox can remain separate precisely because this ambiguity. it's not that they aren't aware of the quotes you provide from catholic.com.....

[dairygirl4u2c]

Here's Victor and Stephen info, two most notable events early on...


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.’ "


As to Stephen and the rebaptism controvery with Firmilian and Cyprian:
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).

[Anomaly]

To Knight of Christ's 'DATA DUMP'.

I got tired of refuting the quotes that DO NOT have anything to do with and do not support Papal Infallibility. The quotes in fact, support my postion that the Pope is a Leader of the Bishops, not an independent authority. The quotes caution against bishops working outside of Tradtion. They support the practical application that questions are considered by multible bishops before the ultimate decision is decided by the Pope. None of the quotes support the Pope being able to act independent of Tradtion. You Catholics have to agree with that. Now how is that done? Obviously, for serious and weighty matter that are critical to the Faith, a COMPLETE Council is required FIRST. As far as the recent 'doctrine' of papal infallibility, it must be noted that a significant amount of Bishops, recognized as having Apostolic Authority and thus, considered to possess the Grace to transmit a portion of the Church's Tradtion, have been excluded.

If you disagree Knight, provide some RELEVANT quotes that speak specifically to these points. For what you provided, it's basically a shotgun answer that doesn't address the question is worth of someone like Budge'. If this matter is so True, Catholics should be able to support it with evidence and reason. If Catholics accept it without the support of Tradition and Reason, then it is nothing more than bring superstition as an authority within their 'religious organization'. Christian Religion has elements of the Divine, but Divinity is not all encompassing because God allows us imperferfect humans to bring in whatever error we can concieve. In other words, if there is an element of infallibility in the way a Religion exists, that infalliblity lies in God correcting, not in humans being free from error. When we start believing that human authority is perfect, we start rejecting God's divine correction.

[Anomaly]

Questioning bump?

I wonder if Apotheon has a comment?

Edited March 19, 2007 by Anomaly

[Anomaly]

Yet another bump of an 'inconvenient question for Catholics'.

Edited March 23, 2007 by Anomaly

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1214444' date='Mar 16 2007, 06:58 AM']To Knight of Christ's 'DATA DUMP'.

I got tired of refuting the quotes that DO NOT have anything to do with and do not support Papal Infallibility. The quotes in fact, support my postion that the Pope is a Leader of the Bishops, not an independent authority. The quotes caution against bishops working outside of Tradtion. They support the practical application that questions are considered by multible bishops before the ultimate decision is decided by the Pope. None of the quotes support the Pope being able to act independent of Tradtion. You Catholics have to agree with that. Now how is that done? Obviously, for serious and weighty matter that are critical to the Faith, a COMPLETE Council is required FIRST. As far as the recent 'doctrine' of papal infallibility, it must be noted that a significant amount of Bishops, recognized as having Apostolic Authority and thus, considered to possess the Grace to transmit a portion of the Church's Tradtion, have been excluded.

If you disagree Knight, provide some RELEVANT quotes that speak specifically to these points. For what you provided, it's basically a shotgun answer that doesn't address the question is worth of someone like Budge'. If this matter is so True, Catholics should be able to support it with evidence and reason. If Catholics accept it without the support of Tradition and Reason, then it is nothing more than bring superstition as an authority within their 'religious organization'. Christian Religion has elements of the Divine, but Divinity is not all encompassing because God allows us imperferfect humans to bring in whatever error we can concieve. In other words, if there is an element of infallibility in the way a Religion exists, that infalliblity lies in God correcting, not in humans being free from error. When we start believing that human authority is perfect, we start rejecting God's divine correction.[/quote]

When did you ever really refute anything of what I posted? All I see here is your opinion and more questions, no data. Budge does not agree with early church fathers that do not match her beliefs so this evidence would mean nothing to her.

But here are more early church fathers before 500 AD supporting undoubtedly Papal Infallibility.

Cyprian of Carthage: "Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither [b]no errors can come[/b]" (Epistulae 59 (55), 14, [256 A.D.])

Cyprian of Carthage: "the Lord says to Peter; ’I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of Heaven; and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven’ [Matt 16:18-19])…On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were also what Peter was [i.e. apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built can he still be confident that he is in the Church? (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251])

Irenaeus of Lyons: "But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).

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." (AD 433)


Theodoret of Cyr: "This most holy See has preserved the supremacy over all Churches 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." (Epistle 116 to Renatus [ A.D. 449]).


Hilary of Potiers: "Blessed Simon, who after his confession of the mystery was set to be the foundation-stone of the Church, and received the keys to the kingdom of heaven." (On the Trinity [ A.D. 315-367])


Origen: "Peter, upon whom is built the Church of Christ, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail, left only one epistle of acknowledged genuinity. Let us concede also a second, which however is doubtful." (Commentaries on John 5,3 [A.D. 226])

Tertulian: "…that the power of binding and loosing has thereby been handed on to you, that is to every church akin to Peter? What kind of man are you, subverting and changing what was the manifest intent of the Lord when He conferred this personally upon Peter? On you, He says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church; and whatever you shall have bound or you shall have loosed, not what they shall have bound or they shall have loosed. " (Modesty, qtd in Jurgens 387 [A.D. 220])

[KnightofChrist]

I guess I could have posted more... but you have problems with "data dumps"

[Anomaly]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1217915' date='Mar 23 2007, 08:05 PM']I guess I could have posted more... but you have problems with "data dumps"[/quote]
I always say, don't try to ride a lame horse past the slaughter house. (You should quit while you're ahead.)
I had copied your 'd d', and was replying to each one individually. I'm of a mindset you can eat an elephant, just one bit at a time. But gnawing on the bones is slow going.

Good post by Cyprian. I will think on that. It's a bit of a stretch to get Supremacy out of that since it points out that the other Apostles do have the same graces and authority as Peter, but Peter is the leader among them. We both know that Peter's authority is bound to the other's Apostles as well, and that is even more important for the subsequent Popes as they are bound to Tradition established by the previous Apostles. Supremacy (as opposed to Primacy) leads to a belief or understanding that the Supreme is bound to little or nothing. That is where Catholics have a problem with how a human Pope can act independently as a Supreme Authority without also being beholden to the Apostolic Tradition that resides with the other Bishops. The Authority of Peter's Chair is intertwined with all the Apostolic Tradition that resides with the Bishops. The seat of Peter is the focus of the Apostolic Tradition and is the exclusive source or there would be no other Bishops. Either the seat of Peter is a Bishop among Bishops, or not. Can the Pope speak infallibly outside the governance of Tradition? How can/does that happen?

Iraneous is referring to the Supremacy of the Church Traditions risiding in Apostolic Succession. Note he refers to what both Paul and Peter gave the Church, not just Peter as Supreme Individual.

Pope Sixtus, is refering to Apostolic Succession, not the office of Supreme Pointiff.

Theodoret is excellent support for you as it is an initial claim of the Chair of Peter being unable to teach heresy. I would really like to know more about the ecclesiastical operation of the Church at that time. Can/did the Bishop of Rome produce new Dogma on his own, or did the Bishop of Rome cause Councils to be formed, mediated them, and lead the Council to define Doctrine by working WITH the other Bishops as Primate, not Supreme Pontiff.

Hilary, Origen, and Tertulian all speak of Peter having the exclusive ability to bind and loose. But does that not deny that Authority in other Bishops? Are there not other Bishops with this Authority? But let's follow the logic. If Peter has this Authority, and comes to share this Authority with the others at Penetecost, when Jesus fulfills his promise, then how can this Authority work against itself, it's as if the Authority of Jesus is divided and can work against itself. Or is the Authority of Christ fully operative and fullfilled when it is weilded in agreement within itself in conjunction with ALL the Bishops? Does Bishop Andrew bind and then Bishop Bob loose, and then Bishop Carl bind the same thing again? After all, we're human.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1217964' date='Mar 23 2007, 08:01 PM']Good post by Cyprian. I will think on that. It's a bit of a stretch to get Supremacy out of that since it points out that the other Apostles do have the same graces and authority as Peter, but Peter is the leader among them.[/quote]

Cyprian points out from the start of the quote that only Peter has the keys of the kingdom of Heaven, the others have a "like-power" but not the same power. Similar but not the same power.


[quote name='Anomaly' post='1217964' date='Mar 23 2007, 08:01 PM']Theodoret is excellent support for you as it is an initial claim of the Chair of Peter being unable to teach heresy. I would really like to know more about the ecclesiastical operation of the Church at that time. Can/did the Bishop of Rome produce new Dogma on his own, or did the Bishop of Rome cause Councils to be formed, mediated them, and lead the Council to define Doctrine by working WITH the other Bishops as Primate, not Supreme Pontiff.[/quote]


Thank you, perhaps someone wiser than I can answer you question. But I would assume that The early Popes may have had help teaching doctrine, but the Pope was the final word on all matters, as was Peter, and every Pope I know.


[quote name='Anomaly' post='1217964' date='Mar 23 2007, 08:01 PM']Hilary, Origen, and Tertulian all speak of Peter having the exclusive ability to bind and loose. But does that not deny that Authority in other Bishops? Are there not other Bishops with this Authority? But let's follow the logic. If Peter has this Authority, and comes to share this Authority with the others at Penetecost, when Jesus fulfills his promise, then how can this Authority work against itself, it's as if the Authority of Jesus is divided and can work against itself. Or is the Authority of Christ fully operative and fullfilled when it is weilded in agreement within itself in conjunction with ALL the Bishops? Does Bishop Andrew bind and then Bishop Bob loose, and then Bishop Carl bind the same thing again? After all, we're human.[/quote]


The office of Peter alone has ability to bind and loose. No other office has been given the keys, not a Pentecost or anywhere. That being said, it is good of you to actually debate an issue than just to totally over look it as some others do.

Clement of Alexandria


"[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? ‘Behold, we have left all and have followed you’ [Matt. 19:27; Mark 10:28]" (Who Is the Rich Man That Is Saved? 21:3–5 [A.D. 200]).



Tertullian


"For though you think that heaven is still shut up, remember that the Lord left the keys of it to Peter here, and through him to the Church, which keys everyone will carry with him if he has been questioned and made a confession [of faith]" (Antidote Against the Scorpion 10 [A.D. 211]).

"[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church" (Modesty 21:9–10 [A.D. 220]).



The Letter of Clement to James


"Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect" (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221]).



Origen


"[I]f we were to attend carefully to the Gospels, we should also find, in relation to those things which seem to be common to Peter . . . a great difference and a preeminence in the things [Jesus] said to Peter, compared with the second class [of apostles]. For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more, and in order that whatsoever things he binds on earth may be bound not in one heaven but in them all, as compared with the many who bind on earth and loose on earth, so that these things are bound and loosed not in [all] the heavens, as in the case of Peter, but in one only; for they do not reach so high a stage with power as Peter to bind and loose in all the heavens" (Commentary on Matthew 13:31 [A.D. 248]).



Cyprian of Carthage


"The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ . . . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).



Cyril of Jerusalem


"The Lord is loving toward men, swift to pardon but slow to punish. Let no man despair of his own salvation. Peter, the first and foremost of the apostles, denied the Lord three times before a little servant girl, but he repented and wept bitterly" (Catechetical Lectures 2:19 [A.D. 350]).

"[Simon Magus] so deceived the city of Rome that Claudius erected a statue of him. . . . While the error was extending itself, Peter and Paul arrived, a noble pair and the rulers of the Church, and they set the error aright. . . . [T]hey launched the weapon of their like-mindedness in prayer against the Magus, and struck him down to earth. It was marvelous enough, and yet no marvel at all, for Peter was there—he that carries about the keys of heaven [Matt. 16:19]" (ibid., 6:14).

"In the power of the same Holy Spirit, Peter, both the chief of the apostles and the keeper of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, in the name of Christ healed Aeneas the paralytic at Lydda, which is now called Diospolis [Acts 9:32–34]" (ibid., 17:27).



Ephraim the Syrian


"[Jesus said:] Simon, my follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I betimes called you Peter, because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on Earth a Church for me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which my teaching flows; you are the chief of my disciples. Through you I will give drink to all peoples. Yours is that life-giving sweetness which I dispense. I have chosen you to be, as it were, the firstborn in my institution so that, as the heir, you may be executor of my treasures. I have given you the keys of my kingdom. Behold, I have given you authority over all my treasures" (Homilies 4:1 [A.D. 351]).

[url="http://www.catholic.com/library/Peter_Primacy.asp"]More...[/url]


[url="http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/rock.htm"]Even more[/url]

[dairygirl4u2c]

The Cyprian quote can mean simply that Rome is to be a source of unity, ideally, not necessarily infallibility. If these quotes mean what you say, then isn't it odd that Cyprian never submitted to Bishop Stephen even until the death of Stephen? He didn't get along with the bishop of rome until the next bishop came. Cyprian also said something to the effect that no should make themselves a "bishop of bishops". If he believed in unity by rome bishop, surely he didn't mean in that sense. What makes more sense is that he didn't think a bishop should be exerted final authority. (catholics of course mean that the infallible pope should confer to ther biships first, ideally, but this is just Cyprian and we don't have to listen to him if the pope doesn't want to.. a nice hop skip around what Cyprian actually thought, when he's a critical peice for their argument)

[dairygirl4u2c]

"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." (The Seventh Council of Carthage Under Cyprian, The Judgment of Eighty-Seven Bishops on the Baptism of Heretics, 250 AD)

Cyprian says, "custom without truth is the antiquity of error".

[KnightofChrist]

It was asked that proof be given that the early church fathers supported the Infallibility/Supremacy/Primacy of the Bishop of Rome before the year 500AD. It was suggested that these quotes did not exist. I have attempted to show they do in fact exist. Now one could try a shoot holes in the church fathers support of the Infallibility/Supremacy/Primacy of the Pope, by focusing on a few of the early church fathers, but I believe over all the evidence shows that a majority of Church Fathers supported and taught the Bishop of Rome, the seat of Peter had Infallibility/Supremacy/Primacy.

In the end and to this day Pope Stephen I "won" the argument, the majority of the Bishops sided with Stephen not Cyprian.

Edited March 24, 2007 by KnightofChrist

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1218350' date='Mar 24 2007, 12:00 PM']"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." (The Seventh Council of Carthage Under Cyprian, The Judgment of Eighty-Seven Bishops on the Baptism of Heretics, 250 AD)

Cyprian says, "custom without truth is the antiquity of error".[/quote]
That quote does not have to read as against Petrine Primacy. First, the pope is not "bishop of bishops." Second, the pope does not, in virtue of papal authority (though some may have claimed it) use tyrannical terror to compel others. Third, it is true that each bishop has authority over his own diocese. Fourth, it is true that the pope has the role of strengthening the brethren and thus can, without judging others, direct them in the way they should go. Fifth and last, the context of that passage (which I have not looked up) could simply be (and probably is, given the title) Cyprian addressing the bishops as a whole. If he was addressing the bishops as a whole and stating that they didn't have power over others, then you can't blame him for not nuancing something he may have believed, since he wouldn't have expected it to be coming under fire or have expected himself to be misinterpreted.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Raphael' post='1219104' date='Mar 25 2007, 01:35 AM']That quote does not have to read as against Petrine Primacy. First, the pope is not "bishop of bishops." Second, the pope does not, in virtue of papal authority (though some may have claimed it) use tyrannical terror to compel others. Third, it is true that each bishop has authority over his own diocese. Fourth, it is true that the pope has the role of strengthening the brethren and thus can, without judging others, direct them in the way they should go. Fifth and last, the context of that passage (which I have not looked up) could simply be (and probably is, given the title) Cyprian addressing the bishops as a whole. If he was addressing the bishops as a whole and stating that they didn't have power over others, then you can't blame him for not nuancing something he may have believed, since he wouldn't have expected it to be coming under fire or have expected himself to be misinterpreted.[/quote]First - Since when?
Second - Condeming people with anethema, excommunication, etc, isn't tyrannical terror. The man is a human with the powers to bind in heaven but is not impeccable. What????
Third - True. Keep that in mind.
Fourth - But is that how the majority of Popes have behaved? Be realistic.
Fifth and Last - Pure wishful speculation that maybe Cyprian didn't mean something that undermined your theory.

Sigh. I'm being forced to crack open my Catholic History books. The reality is, the idea of Papal Supremacy (not Primacy among the Bishops) was brought about for civil politics, not theological needs unless all the Bishops and Cardinals are always impeccable...

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]“With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set
sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and
to the principal Church, in which sacerdotal unity has its source; nor did they take
thought that these are Romans, whose faith was praised by the preaching Apostle,
and among whom it is not possible for perfidy to have entrance.”

v.

"Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come"

(Epistulae 59 (55), 14, [256 A.D.]).[/quote]

i noticed the second quote from karl keatings book.
beside it, i saw "rome has spoken, the case is closed". this quote is notoriously skewed from the original transaltion. i wonder if the first quote is as well.

the CC definitely has evidence, they just don't have definitive proof. if the orthodox can remain separate, it can't be that definiitve.
(it seems i have to refer overzeolous catholics to the orthodox a lot, cause their programmed response is suppose to be respect for them, and that's the programmed response they usually give)