OrthodoxChristianity.net

Moderated Forums => Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion => Orthodox-Catholic Discussion => Topic started by: Melesine on March 22, 2013, 10:43:56 AM

Title: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Melesine on March 22, 2013, 10:43:56 AM
I've been torn between the CC and OC for quite awhile now. I'm a convert to the CC, but I felt a strong pull to the OC even before becoming Catholic. Since then, I've struggled to make sense of it all.

I do not understand the Catholic veneration of the papal office. I hear lots of comments about how regardless of what he may have said or done or taught as Bishop that he is Pope now and they support him no matter what, because he is reserved from teaching false doctrine or he will no longer be Pope. People actually believe that God will strike him down before he would have the opportunity to promulgate something false.  ???

I'm now starting to see the problem with declaring something ( a council) or someone ( the Pope) infallible at the outset instead of after the fact when the orthodoxy of what is declared can be confirmed or rejected.

Universal jurisdiction seems to be naturally tied to papal infallibility and creates the situation where submission to Rome is more important than orthodox belief. Hence we have a bunch of people that are considered Catholic but don't agree with Catholic teaching on many issues. it's no longer about orthodox belief it's all about being in communion with the Pope. Because once a Catholic always a Catholic.

None of this makes any sense to me and now I realize I never should have become Catholic in the first place.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Agabus on March 22, 2013, 10:46:13 AM
How long have you been Catholic?
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Melesine on March 22, 2013, 10:50:09 AM
Two years.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Agabus on March 22, 2013, 11:03:42 AM
Two years.
Ah.

And what was it that so captured you on Catholicism in the first place that you followed it despite feeling — in your words — a strong pull to Orthodoxy?

I am asking to help flesh out some of this a little. Several times a year we see people come on this board saying, “I converted to Catholicism relatively recently, now I want to convert to Orthodoxy because of (x) issue;” some follow through with becoming Orthodox, some stay Catholic and some become something entirely else.

I am not trying to discourage you from Orthodoxy — far from it. But I think it helps a person orient themselves (and those with whom they are speaking) if they review their initial decisions, hindsight being what it is.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Melesine on March 22, 2013, 11:45:45 AM
It's a long story that has been going on for over 5 years and I've been back and forth between the two the whole time. I actually left RCIA in middle and started attending the Orthodox church. But we went back and I basically gave in and got baptized Catholic because my husband was more comfortable at the Catholic church, we were already in RCIA with a firm plan for baptism. The thought of remaining unbaptized any longer made me extremely uncomfortable, and I was driving my husband so crazy with the back and forth that he was about to give up on Christianity completely.

The day we got baptized I felt I should have become Orthodox instead. I continued to read Orthodox theological books and about 6 months after baptism we started attending liturgy at one of the local Orthodox churches and I've since shared a lot of theological reading I've done with my husband and he is on board with becoming Orthodox.  But I've still been back and forth mentally and we spent a decent amount of time not going to church at all because I've felt stuck in inertia and frustrated over what to do. Plus he has had some very serious medical problems over the last 2 years so we have been dealing with that.

I think I'm overwhelmed at how personal the Orthodox faith is compared to Catholicism. I can more easily blend in and be anonymous at the Catholic church and I have social anxiety sometimes. Although I really like the parish community at the Orthodox church we have gone to here, I often am not sure what is expected of me or how I'm supposed to act. I think that is my biggest obstacle.

Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: TheTrisagion on March 22, 2013, 11:52:44 AM
Not that I think it is a great final destination (at least for me), but have you considered Eastern Catholicism?  I know several people who have found a home there until they were able to sort out their beliefs between RC and EO. 
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: J Michael on March 22, 2013, 12:21:46 PM
It's a long story that has been going on for over 5 years and I've been back and forth between the two the whole time. I actually left RCIA in middle and started attending the Orthodox church. But we went back and I basically gave in and got baptized Catholic because my husband was more comfortable at the Catholic church, we were already in RCIA with a firm plan for baptism. The thought of remaining unbaptized any longer made me extremely uncomfortable, and I was driving my husband so crazy with the back and forth that he was about to give up on Christianity completely.

The day we got baptized I felt I should have become Orthodox instead. I continued to read Orthodox theological books and about 6 months after baptism we started attending liturgy at one of the local Orthodox churches and I've since shared a lot of theological reading I've done with my husband and he is on board with becoming Orthodox.  But I've still been back and forth mentally and we spent a decent amount of time not going to church at all because I've felt stuck in inertia and frustrated over what to do. Plus he has had some very serious medical problems over the last 2 years so we have been dealing with that.

I think I'm overwhelmed at how personal the Orthodox faith is compared to Catholicism. I can more easily blend in and be anonymous at the Catholic church and I have social anxiety sometimes. Although I really like the parish community at the Orthodox church we have gone to here, I often am not sure what is expected of me or how I'm supposed to act. I think that is my biggest obstacle.



Welcome to the forum and the fray!  ;D


Sounds like maybe you weren't really "ready" to be baptized.  Just a thought.  Did you ever discuss your misgivings/doubts with your priest prior to the baptism?  Or since??

Orthodoxy (and Eastern Catholicism) can seem more personal than Roman Catholicism, especially in the U.S., because for the greatest part, the parishes are so much smaller and more intimate than so many RC parishes.  However, even in a large RC parish it is quite possible to feel warmth and welcoming and a personal touch.  And even in a small OC parish, you can be made to feel unwelcome, useless, and rejected.  Much of how you are received and perceived in any parish is up to you.  Just my opinion.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Cyrillic on March 22, 2013, 12:24:35 PM
Why anyone would join a Church of which he's not sure that it is the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church from the creed is beyond me.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: J Michael on March 22, 2013, 12:27:49 PM
Why anyone would join a Church of which he's not sure that it is the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church from the creed is beyond me.

Try not to be too harsh.  Understanding the human mind and heart is often a difficult and futile undertaking.  There is much that is beyond most of us.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: biro on March 22, 2013, 12:33:27 PM
To the OP: I hope you are able to find a place that brings you peace.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: choy on March 22, 2013, 12:59:10 PM
I often am not sure what is expected of me or how I'm supposed to act. I think that is my biggest obstacle.

You're expected to love God.  That is all.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Melesine on March 22, 2013, 01:11:07 PM
Not that I think it is a great final destination (at least for me), but have you considered Eastern Catholicism?  I know several people who have found a home there until they were able to sort out their beliefs between RC and EO. 

If my main issue was just a preference for the divine liturgy and eastern spirituality I guess I could see it as option but my issues are mainly theological, and I don't see how being EC fixes my issues with the papacy.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Apotheoun on March 22, 2013, 01:13:38 PM
I will pray for you. May God give you the light you need, so that you may see clearly what His will is for you.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Melesine on March 22, 2013, 01:17:19 PM

Welcome to the forum and the fray!  ;D


Sounds like maybe you weren't really "ready" to be baptized.  Just a thought.  Did you ever discuss your misgivings/doubts with your priest prior to the baptism?  Or since??

Orthodoxy (and Eastern Catholicism) can seem more personal than Roman Catholicism, especially in the U.S., because for the greatest part, the parishes are so much smaller and more intimate than so many RC parishes.  However, even in a large RC parish it is quite possible to feel warmth and welcoming and a personal touch.  And even in a small OC parish, you can be made to feel unwelcome, useless, and rejected.  Much of how you are received and perceived in any parish is up to you.  Just my opinion.

I'm not really talking coffee hour, I'm referring to the anonymous confessions and anyone can get in line to receive eucharist.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: choy on March 22, 2013, 01:23:54 PM
My advice here is to be honest to yourself.  If you feel that the truth is not in Catholicism, then leave.  But don't rush, take your time, pray, discern carefully.  I took about 9 months before I became a catechumen.  Some people take longer.  Read, ask questions, speak to a priest.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: mike on March 22, 2013, 01:25:44 PM
I'm not really talking coffee hour, I'm referring to the anonymous confessions and anyone can get in line to receive eucharist.

There are plenty of Orthodox parishes where that happens too.

Don't change religion because of social issues.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: choy on March 22, 2013, 01:28:48 PM
I'm not really talking coffee hour, I'm referring to the anonymous confessions and anyone can get in line to receive eucharist.

Is this in reference to your own experience, or with others?
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Melesine on March 22, 2013, 01:29:21 PM
Why anyone would join a Church of which he's not sure that it is the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church from the creed is beyond me.

If I waited until I was sure beyond any doubt, I'd probably never do anything. As someone coming from a non Christian background it's taken a lot of time just to learn the terminology. The things that separate the Catholics and Orthodox are not simple and easy to understand for me. Both sides make what seem to be convincing arguments for their positions and I've simply thrown up my hands on many occasions and figured I'm just not qualified to decide. At the same time the need to be part of Gods church is overwhelming and something I can't ignore.

If only I was able to see it all so clearly and simply as you must.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: J Michael on March 22, 2013, 01:32:47 PM

Welcome to the forum and the fray!  ;D


Sounds like maybe you weren't really "ready" to be baptized.  Just a thought.  Did you ever discuss your misgivings/doubts with your priest prior to the baptism?  Or since??

Orthodoxy (and Eastern Catholicism) can seem more personal than Roman Catholicism, especially in the U.S., because for the greatest part, the parishes are so much smaller and more intimate than so many RC parishes.  However, even in a large RC parish it is quite possible to feel warmth and welcoming and a personal touch.  And even in a small OC parish, you can be made to feel unwelcome, useless, and rejected.  Much of how you are received and perceived in any parish is up to you.  Just my opinion.

I'm not really talking coffee hour, I'm referring to the anonymous confessions and anyone can get in line to receive eucharist.

Please explain what you mean by "anonymous confessions".  I think I may know, but I don't want to second-guess you.

I do know what you mean about approaching the Chalice and receiving.  I would be the last one to deny that there are issues there that really do need to be addressed by the Catholic Church.  On the other hand, it is not *my* place to judge who may or may not approach.  If I personally know someone who is not Catholic and they express a desire to receive communion, or get in line to do so, I will gently tell them that Communion is reserved for those Catholics who are "in a state of Grace".  Judgment on those who do so anyway, or on those who I don't know whether they are Catholic or not, is not mine to give.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Melesine on March 22, 2013, 01:33:50 PM
This is so odd, I didn't expect to basically be told to stay Catholic on an Orthodox forum.

My main issues are theological, the social type things are just the icing on the cake so to speak.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: choy on March 22, 2013, 01:36:00 PM
This is so odd, I didn't expect to basically be told to stay Catholic on an Orthodox forum.

Welcome to Orthodoxy ;)

We believe in preaching the Gospel, not in proselytizing people.  Only God converts.  We can tell you to convert to Orthodoxy but if you do and you have the same feeling as you do now and you leave, then it didn't serve anyone any purpose.

My own priest never prodded me to convert.  He did answer every question I have very honestly from the perspective of the Orthodox Church.  One may mistake it for proselytizing.  But he constantly reminds me that I don't have to convert if I don't want to.  But he's not going to sugar coat the answers to the questions I asked.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: J Michael on March 22, 2013, 01:37:59 PM
Not that I think it is a great final destination (at least for me), but have you considered Eastern Catholicism?  I know several people who have found a home there until they were able to sort out their beliefs between RC and EO. 

If my main issue was just a preference for the divine liturgy and eastern spirituality I guess I could see it as option but my issues are mainly theological, and I don't see how being EC fixes my issues with the papacy.

It doesn't.  If you cannot accept, no matter how hard you might try to convince yourself otherwise, the Catholic dogmas and doctrines related to the papacy, then you must become Orthodox or something else or nothing at all.  What a shame that these issues were not settled for you before your baptism, as they probably should have been  :(!  Again, have you discussed any of this with your priest?  If not, it might be a good idea to do so.  Unless, of course, you've already made up your mind to leave the Catholic Church.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: choy on March 22, 2013, 01:42:39 PM
Why anyone would join a Church of which he's not sure that it is the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church from the creed is beyond me.

If I waited until I was sure beyond any doubt, I'd probably never do anything. As someone coming from a non Christian background it's taken a lot of time just to learn the terminology. The things that separate the Catholics and Orthodox are not simple and easy to understand for me. Both sides make what seem to be convincing arguments for their positions and I've simply thrown up my hands on many occasions and figured I'm just not qualified to decide. At the same time the need to be part of Gods church is overwhelming and something I can't ignore.

If only I was able to see it all so clearly and simply as you must.

Someone gave me an advice on this forum last year when I was contemplating conversion.  I said I felt I wanted to be Orthodox but I couldn't leave my Eastern Catholic parish.  That person told me that when the time comes I will feel like there is a fire lit underneath me and I will go and become Orthodox.  And indeed it did come.  At first we spoke to the priest and we said we want a gradual transition, especially that I was involved with a lot of stuff with my former parish.  That was November.  We agreed that we can be received after the Gregorian Easter, and probably be Chrismated by the Orthodox Pascha.  Yet one month later I just can't stand it anymore, I knew I was somewhere I didn't want to be and I want to be somewhere else.  So by Theophany I asked the priest to receive us as catechumens and the very next Sunday we were.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Melesine on March 22, 2013, 01:43:53 PM


It doesn't.  If you cannot accept, no matter how hard you might try to convince yourself otherwise, the Catholic dogmas and doctrines related to the papacy, then you must become Orthodox or something else or nothing at all.  What a shame that these issues were not settled for you before your baptism, as they probably should have been  :(!  Again, have you discussed any of this with your priest?  If not, it might be a good idea to do so.  Unless, of course, you've already made up your mind to leave the Catholic Church.

I haven't. The priest that baptized me was moved out of the area and we moved to another state anyway. Since moving I haven't had contact with any Catholic priests other than in the confessional or when receiving the eucharist. I know my own fault. Last year I brought it up in confession that I'd been attending divine liturgy at the Orthodox Church and the priest said it was fine as we are all bothers and sisters in Christ.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: choy on March 22, 2013, 01:45:51 PM


It doesn't.  If you cannot accept, no matter how hard you might try to convince yourself otherwise, the Catholic dogmas and doctrines related to the papacy, then you must become Orthodox or something else or nothing at all.  What a shame that these issues were not settled for you before your baptism, as they probably should have been  :(!  Again, have you discussed any of this with your priest?  If not, it might be a good idea to do so.  Unless, of course, you've already made up your mind to leave the Catholic Church.

I haven't. The priest that baptized me was moved out of the area and we moved to another state anyway. Since moving I haven't had contact with any Catholic priests other than in the confessional or when receiving the eucharist. I know my own fault. Last year I brought it up in confession that I'd been attending divine liturgy at the Orthodox Church and the priest said it was fine as we are all bothers and sisters in Christ.

You have to follow what is in your heart.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Melesine on March 22, 2013, 01:46:24 PM
This is so odd, I didn't expect to basically be told to stay Catholic on an Orthodox forum.

Welcome to Orthodoxy ;)

We believe in preaching the Gospel, not in proselytizing people.  Only God converts.  We can tell you to convert to Orthodoxy but if you do and you have the same feeling as you do now and you leave, then it didn't serve anyone any purpose.

My own priest never prodded me to convert.  He did answer every question I have very honestly from the perspective of the Orthodox Church.  One may mistake it for proselytizing.  But he constantly reminds me that I don't have to convert if I don't want to.  But he's not going to sugar coat the answers to the questions I asked.

It was starting to remind me of the way rabbis refuse potential converts 3 times to see if they are sincere lol.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Melesine on March 22, 2013, 01:54:29 PM
Why anyone would join a Church of which he's not sure that it is the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church from the creed is beyond me.

If I waited until I was sure beyond any doubt, I'd probably never do anything. As someone coming from a non Christian background it's taken a lot of time just to learn the terminology. The things that separate the Catholics and Orthodox are not simple and easy to understand for me. Both sides make what seem to be convincing arguments for their positions and I've simply thrown up my hands on many occasions and figured I'm just not qualified to decide. At the same time the need to be part of Gods church is overwhelming and something I can't ignore.

If only I was able to see it all so clearly and simply as you must.

Someone gave me an advice on this forum last year when I was contemplating conversion.  I said I felt I wanted to be Orthodox but I couldn't leave my Eastern Catholic parish.  That person told me that when the time comes I will feel like there is a fire lit underneath me and I will go and become Orthodox.  And indeed it did come.  At first we spoke to the priest and we said we want a gradual transition, especially that I was involved with a lot of stuff with my former parish.  That was November.  We agreed that we can be received after the Gregorian Easter, and probably be Chrismated by the Orthodox Pascha.  Yet one month later I just can't stand it anymore, I knew I was somewhere I didn't want to be and I want to be somewhere else.  So by Theophany I asked the priest to receive us as catechumens and the very next Sunday we were.


Thanks, that was really helpful. I thought we were on our way to becoming Orthodox about a year ago. We were attending a class on Orthodoxy at the church we were attending liturgy at but the class wasn't able to continue. Then my husband had heart surgery and later a stroke, he is fine now but that was preoccupying a lot of my time last year. I should probably just make an appointment to meet with the priest.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: J Michael on March 22, 2013, 01:59:43 PM


It doesn't.  If you cannot accept, no matter how hard you might try to convince yourself otherwise, the Catholic dogmas and doctrines related to the papacy, then you must become Orthodox or something else or nothing at all.  What a shame that these issues were not settled for you before your baptism, as they probably should have been  :(!  Again, have you discussed any of this with your priest?  If not, it might be a good idea to do so.  Unless, of course, you've already made up your mind to leave the Catholic Church.

I haven't. The priest that baptized me was moved out of the area and we moved to another state anyway. Since moving I haven't had contact with any Catholic priests other than in the confessional or when receiving the eucharist. I know my own fault. Last year I brought it up in confession that I'd been attending divine liturgy at the Orthodox Church and the priest said it was fine as we are all bothers and sisters in Christ.

Well, it is fine to attend the Orthodox Divine Liturgy ;)!  For all intents and purposes it's the same liturgy we use in the Byzantine Catholic Church.  However.......if you have issues with Catholic dogma and doctrine and if you have not yet made up your mind to leave the Catholic Church, you really owe it to yourself, imho,  to perhaps make an appointment with your current Catholic priest to discuss all of this with a view to resolving your issues one way or another.  But, if you have already made up your mind (and it kinda sounds like you have), it's a moot point, and while you might have an interesting discussion, it could just be a waste of his and your time, and you probably ought to approach the priest at the Orthodox church you've been attending and tell him you want to enter into catechesis.  If he's smart, he'll imitate the rabbis, and refuse you 3 times as a test of your sincerity and readiness  ;).
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: choy on March 22, 2013, 02:06:13 PM
It was starting to remind me of the way rabbis refuse potential converts 3 times to see if they are sincere lol.

Well, in a sense that is the case here.  We don't want someone to convert only to leave later on.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: choy on March 22, 2013, 02:07:59 PM
Why anyone would join a Church of which he's not sure that it is the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church from the creed is beyond me.

If I waited until I was sure beyond any doubt, I'd probably never do anything. As someone coming from a non Christian background it's taken a lot of time just to learn the terminology. The things that separate the Catholics and Orthodox are not simple and easy to understand for me. Both sides make what seem to be convincing arguments for their positions and I've simply thrown up my hands on many occasions and figured I'm just not qualified to decide. At the same time the need to be part of Gods church is overwhelming and something I can't ignore.

If only I was able to see it all so clearly and simply as you must.

Someone gave me an advice on this forum last year when I was contemplating conversion.  I said I felt I wanted to be Orthodox but I couldn't leave my Eastern Catholic parish.  That person told me that when the time comes I will feel like there is a fire lit underneath me and I will go and become Orthodox.  And indeed it did come.  At first we spoke to the priest and we said we want a gradual transition, especially that I was involved with a lot of stuff with my former parish.  That was November.  We agreed that we can be received after the Gregorian Easter, and probably be Chrismated by the Orthodox Pascha.  Yet one month later I just can't stand it anymore, I knew I was somewhere I didn't want to be and I want to be somewhere else.  So by Theophany I asked the priest to receive us as catechumens and the very next Sunday we were.


Thanks, that was really helpful. I thought we were on our way to becoming Orthodox about a year ago. We were attending a class on Orthodoxy at the church we were attending liturgy at but the class wasn't able to continue. Then my husband had heart surgery and later a stroke, he is fine now but that was preoccupying a lot of my time last year. I should probably just make an appointment to meet with the priest.

Do that, speak with the priest, but don't feel pressured.  If at the end you feel you don't want to become Orthodox, thank the priest, maybe buy him lunch or something, and be at peace.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Melesine on March 22, 2013, 02:11:09 PM
Thanks  :)

I do really like the priest at our Orthodox parish. I'm not sure why I've been so nervous to make an appointment with him. He is very welcoming ( as is everyone else) and I feel comfortable talking to him. I guess I haven't wanted to meet with him until I was totally sure and ready to become Orthodox.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Melesine on March 22, 2013, 02:11:53 PM
It was starting to remind me of the way rabbis refuse potential converts 3 times to see if they are sincere lol.

Well, in a sense that is the case here.  We don't want someone to convert only to leave later on.

I don't want that either, which is why I've been stuck in the middle all this time.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Melesine on March 22, 2013, 02:16:26 PM

Well, it is fine to attend the Orthodox Divine Liturgy ;)!  For all intents and purposes it's the same liturgy we use in the Byzantine Catholic Church.  However.......if you have issues with Catholic dogma and doctrine and if you have not yet made up your mind to leave the Catholic Church, you really owe it to yourself, imho,  to perhaps make an appointment with your current Catholic priest to discuss all of this with a view to resolving your issues one way or another.  But, if you have already made up your mind (and it kinda sounds like you have), it's a moot point, and while you might have an interesting discussion, it could just be a waste of his and your time, and you probably ought to approach the priest at the Orthodox church you've been attending and tell him you want to enter into catechesis.  If he's smart, he'll imitate the rabbis, and refuse you 3 times as a test of your sincerity and readiness  ;).

Now that I think about it I did discuss it with my first priest before he was transferred. I told him I'd been reading Orthodox theological books and it was making me confused and he told me to stop doing that LOL. This was right after I was baptized. I did stop for awhile. But when we moved out of state a few months later I went to the Orthodox church instead of the Catholic one. Then I went back and forth at different times.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Maria on March 22, 2013, 02:18:02 PM


It doesn't.  If you cannot accept, no matter how hard you might try to convince yourself otherwise, the Catholic dogmas and doctrines related to the papacy, then you must become Orthodox or something else or nothing at all.  What a shame that these issues were not settled for you before your baptism, as they probably should have been  :(!  Again, have you discussed any of this with your priest?  If not, it might be a good idea to do so.  Unless, of course, you've already made up your mind to leave the Catholic Church.

I haven't. The priest that baptized me was moved out of the area and we moved to another state anyway. Since moving I haven't had contact with any Catholic priests other than in the confessional or when receiving the eucharist. I know my own fault. Last year I brought it up in confession that I'd been attending divine liturgy at the Orthodox Church and the priest said it was fine as we are all bothers and sisters in Christ.

Well, it is fine to attend the Orthodox Divine Liturgy ;)!  For all intents and purposes it's the same liturgy we use in the Byzantine Catholic Church.  However.......if you have issues with Catholic dogma and doctrine and if you have not yet made up your mind to leave the Catholic Church, you really owe it to yourself, imho,  to perhaps make an appointment with your current Catholic priest to discuss all of this with a view to resolving your issues one way or another.  But, if you have already made up your mind (and it kinda sounds like you have), it's a moot point, and while you might have an interesting discussion, it could just be a waste of his and your time, and you probably ought to approach the priest at the Orthodox church you've been attending and tell him you want to enter into catechesis.  If he's smart, he'll imitate the rabbis, and refuse you 3 times as a test of your sincerity and readiness  ;).

I knew several Orthodox priests in the OCA, Greek, and Antiochian parishes who would contact the Catholic priest and advise them (with permission of the inquirer) that one of their parishioners was thinking of converting to Orthodoxy. Often, the Catholic went back red-faced to face their Catholic priest, and never darkened the steps of an Orthodox Church again.

Just before being received as catechumens, we wrote a letter to our Catholic pastor, who was quite upset as all at once he had lost a lot of parishioners, most of whom sang in his choir.

Prior to our chrismation into Orthodoxy, we were also encouraged to write a letter to Cardinal Mahony, but we never received any response from him.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: choy on March 22, 2013, 02:18:52 PM
It was starting to remind me of the way rabbis refuse potential converts 3 times to see if they are sincere lol.

Well, in a sense that is the case here.  We don't want someone to convert only to leave later on.

I don't want that either, which is why I've been stuck in the middle all this time.

Don't rush.  If you feel you want to inquire, inquire.  If you want to stop, stop.  If you want to convert, convert.  But don't do something against what you want to do.

As with my own story, I wanted to convert as early as Spring last year.  But I had many reservations, and I would have convereted for the wrong reasons.  So I took my time and I waited.

Don't rush.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: J Michael on March 22, 2013, 02:26:30 PM

Well, it is fine to attend the Orthodox Divine Liturgy ;)!  For all intents and purposes it's the same liturgy we use in the Byzantine Catholic Church.  However.......if you have issues with Catholic dogma and doctrine and if you have not yet made up your mind to leave the Catholic Church, you really owe it to yourself, imho,  to perhaps make an appointment with your current Catholic priest to discuss all of this with a view to resolving your issues one way or another.  But, if you have already made up your mind (and it kinda sounds like you have), it's a moot point, and while you might have an interesting discussion, it could just be a waste of his and your time, and you probably ought to approach the priest at the Orthodox church you've been attending and tell him you want to enter into catechesis.  If he's smart, he'll imitate the rabbis, and refuse you 3 times as a test of your sincerity and readiness  ;).

Now that I think about it I did discuss it with my first priest before he was transferred. I told him I'd been reading Orthodox theological books and it was making me confused and he told me to stop doing that LOL. This was right after I was baptized. I did stop for awhile. But when we moved out of state a few months later I went to the Orthodox church instead of the Catholic one. Then I went back and forth at different times.

Well, given that it was right after your baptism in the Latin rite of the Catholic Church, and given that it was confusing you, his advice was spot on ;).  There you were, barely an infant, so to speak, in your new faith and you were studying another one with no degree of maturity as a Catholic Christian.  But, if at your baptism you felt you shouldn't have been doing that and should have become Orthodox, and you now have theological issues with the Catholic Church, it's probably time to ask to be received into the Orthodox catechumenate.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Cyrillic on March 22, 2013, 02:27:10 PM

I knew several Orthodox priests in the OCA, Greek, and Antiochian parishes who would contact the Catholic priest and advise them (with permission of the inquirer) that one of their parishioners was thinking of converting to Orthodoxy. Often, the Catholic went back red-faced to face their Catholic priest, and never darkened the steps of an Orthodox Church again.

Just before being received as catechumens, we wrote a letter to our Catholic pastor, who was quite upset as all at once he had lost a lot of parishioners, most of whom sang in his choir.

Prior to our chrismation into Orthodoxy, we were also encouraged to write a letter to Cardinal Mahony, but we never received any response from him.


Why?
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Maria on March 22, 2013, 02:27:57 PM

I knew several Orthodox priests in the OCA, Greek, and Antiochian parishes who would contact the Catholic priest and advise them (with permission of the inquirer) that one of their parishioners was thinking of converting to Orthodoxy. Often, the Catholic went back red-faced to face their Catholic priest, and never darkened the steps of an Orthodox Church again.

Just before being received as catechumens, we wrote a letter to our Catholic pastor, who was quite upset as all at once he had lost a lot of parishioners, most of whom sang in his choir.

Prior to our chrismation into Orthodoxy, we were also encouraged to write a letter to Cardinal Mahony, but we never received any response from him.


Why?

Balamand Agreement.

Actually, these Orthodox Priests were discouraging us from becoming Orthodox. They wanted us to remain Roman Catholics as their hierarchs had signed that Balamand Agreement.

However, it is important to note that quite a few Orthodox Christians in our area have converted to Roman Catholicism so that they could get the parochial school discount. Many Greeks tend to have large families. I know some of these people, and they actually (surprise) like the Novus Ordo Mass.

I do not know how these Greek converts handled papal infallibility and supremacy. I couldn't return to Catholicism if you paid me a million bucks.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: TheTrisagion on March 22, 2013, 02:29:54 PM
Well, you have the Catholics here telling you to go Orthodox and the Orthodox telling you to stay Catholics.  It's a wacky world, isn't it?  :laugh:

In all seriousness, I am a catechumen in Orthodoxy right now.  It has been about 5 years since I started my journey and I haven't gotten there yet.  It can be frustrating, but patience in allowing God to direct you will yield great rewards.  I would not jump ship until you are absolutely convinced is it what you should do.  That might be a long wait, but it will come.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Cyrillic on March 22, 2013, 02:30:49 PM

I knew several Orthodox priests in the OCA, Greek, and Antiochian parishes who would contact the Catholic priest and advise them (with permission of the inquirer) that one of their parishioners was thinking of converting to Orthodoxy. Often, the Catholic went back red-faced to face their Catholic priest, and never darkened the steps of an Orthodox Church again.

Just before being received as catechumens, we wrote a letter to our Catholic pastor, who was quite upset as all at once he had lost a lot of parishioners, most of whom sang in his choir.

Prior to our chrismation into Orthodoxy, we were also encouraged to write a letter to Cardinal Mahony, but we never received any response from him.


Why?

Balamand Agreement.

That's seriously disturbing.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: J Michael on March 22, 2013, 02:31:21 PM


It doesn't.  If you cannot accept, no matter how hard you might try to convince yourself otherwise, the Catholic dogmas and doctrines related to the papacy, then you must become Orthodox or something else or nothing at all.  What a shame that these issues were not settled for you before your baptism, as they probably should have been  :(!  Again, have you discussed any of this with your priest?  If not, it might be a good idea to do so.  Unless, of course, you've already made up your mind to leave the Catholic Church.

I haven't. The priest that baptized me was moved out of the area and we moved to another state anyway. Since moving I haven't had contact with any Catholic priests other than in the confessional or when receiving the eucharist. I know my own fault. Last year I brought it up in confession that I'd been attending divine liturgy at the Orthodox Church and the priest said it was fine as we are all bothers and sisters in Christ.

Well, it is fine to attend the Orthodox Divine Liturgy ;)!  For all intents and purposes it's the same liturgy we use in the Byzantine Catholic Church.  However.......if you have issues with Catholic dogma and doctrine and if you have not yet made up your mind to leave the Catholic Church, you really owe it to yourself, imho,  to perhaps make an appointment with your current Catholic priest to discuss all of this with a view to resolving your issues one way or another.  But, if you have already made up your mind (and it kinda sounds like you have), it's a moot point, and while you might have an interesting discussion, it could just be a waste of his and your time, and you probably ought to approach the priest at the Orthodox church you've been attending and tell him you want to enter into catechesis.  If he's smart, he'll imitate the rabbis, and refuse you 3 times as a test of your sincerity and readiness  ;).

I knew several Orthodox priests in the OCA, Greek, and Antiochian parishes who would contact the Catholic priest and advise them (with permission of the inquirer) that one of their parishioners was thinking of converting to Orthodoxy. Often, the Catholic went back red-faced to face their Catholic priest, and never darkened the steps of an Orthodox Church again.

Just before being received as catechumens, we wrote a letter to our Catholic pastor, who was quite upset as all at once he had lost a lot of parishioners, most of whom sang in his choir.

Prior to our chrismation into Orthodoxy, we were also encouraged to write a letter to Cardinal Mahony, but we never received any response from him.


Interesting!  I wonder how many other Orthodox priests do that?  The ones I've known did not, to the best of my knowledge.

Kudos to you for writing the letters to your Catholic pastor, and to Cardinal Mahony!  I'm not surprised he didn't respond, though.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: J Michael on March 22, 2013, 02:34:09 PM
Well, you have the Catholics here telling you to go Orthodox and the Orthodox telling you to stay Catholics.  It's a wacky world, isn't it?  :laugh:

  It can be frustrating, but patience in allowing God to direct you will yield great rewards.  I would not jump ship until you are absolutely convinced is it what you should do.  That might be a long wait, but it will come.
^This!  ;)
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: mike on March 22, 2013, 02:37:11 PM
Balamand Agreement.

Actually, these Orthodox Priests were discouraging us from becoming Orthodox. They wanted us to remain Roman Catholics as their hierarchs had signed that Balamand Agreement.

This document has not been signed.

And @choy, stop using the "we" pronoun. I have not authorized you to be my spokesman. Speak for yourself if you share your own opinions.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Papist on March 22, 2013, 02:37:40 PM
I find it funny that whenever some one wants to dismiss a position with which he or she does not agree, this person will simply call it "magical." And the debate is over. Rock crushes scissors, scissors cuts paper, paper covers rock, calling something "magic" nukes them all.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Cyrillic on March 22, 2013, 02:39:28 PM
I find it funny that whenever some one wants to dismiss a position with which he or she does not agree, this person will simply call it "magical." And the debate is over. Rock crushes scissors, scissors cuts paper, paper covers rock, calling something "magic" nukes them all.

Meh, you have to admit that the theory that a Pope will get struck by a lightning bolt before preaching heresy is weird.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Papist on March 22, 2013, 02:40:02 PM
Balamand Agreement.

Actually, these Orthodox Priests were discouraging us from becoming Orthodox. They wanted us to remain Roman Catholics as their hierarchs had signed that Balamand Agreement.

This document has not been signed.

And @choy, stop using the "we" pronoun. I have not authorized you to be my spokesman. Speak for yourself if you share your own opinions.
Perhaps he is using the royal "we," in which case I fully support him.  :D
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: mike on March 22, 2013, 02:41:27 PM
Balamand Agreement.

Actually, these Orthodox Priests were discouraging us from becoming Orthodox. They wanted us to remain Roman Catholics as their hierarchs had signed that Balamand Agreement.

This document has not been signed.

And @choy, stop using the "we" pronoun. I have not authorized you to be my spokesman. Speak for yourself if you share your own opinions.
Perhaps he is using the royal "we," in which case I fully support him.  :D

I hope so. I got easily irritated by people who think they can speak on behalf of some group I belong to. You can call it my pet issue.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: choy on March 22, 2013, 02:43:45 PM
And @choy, stop using the "we" pronoun. I have not authorized you to be my spokesman. Speak for yourself if you share your own opinions.

There is no "I" in Orthodoxy ;)
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: choy on March 22, 2013, 02:46:11 PM
By the way Michal, when I use "we", those are not opinions.  Those are things that I have been taught.  So it is not coming from me as my opinion.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Melesine on March 22, 2013, 02:52:32 PM
I find it funny that whenever some one wants to dismiss a position with which he or she does not agree, this person will simply call it "magical." And the debate is over. Rock crushes scissors, scissors cuts paper, paper covers rock, calling something "magic" nukes them all.

I can't think of any other way to describe it but magical. All of of a sudden you get a special super power, because you have been elected pope. No matter what you have ever believed or taught before.  
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: J Michael on March 22, 2013, 02:54:15 PM
I find it funny that whenever some one wants to dismiss a position with which he or she does not agree, this person will simply call it "magical." And the debate is over. Rock crushes scissors, scissors cuts paper, paper covers rock, calling something "magic" nukes them all.

Meh, you have to admit that the theory that a Pope will get struck by a lightning bolt before preaching heresy is weird.

This is a theory that I've read about only on this board, and nowhere else.  Maybe I lead a sheltered life  :D.  But you're right...it is weird.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: J Michael on March 22, 2013, 03:11:36 PM
I find it funny that whenever some one wants to dismiss a position with which he or she does not agree, this person will simply call it "magical." And the debate is over. Rock crushes scissors, scissors cuts paper, paper covers rock, calling something "magic" nukes them all.

I can't think of any other way to describe it but magical. All of of a sudden you get a special super power, because you have been elected pope. No matter what you have ever believed or taught before.  

Don't Orthodox men get special "superpowers" too when they become ordained?  Don't Orthodox priests get some kind of special superpower when ordained to the episcopate?  I mean, just a few words and a laying on of hands endows them with the ability to pass on Apostolic succession, ordain priests, etc., etc.   How is that essentially different?  Is it "magical thinking" or "magic" that make the bread and wine become His Body and His Blood?  After all, they still look like and taste like bread and wine....

If you believe, then it's not "magical thinking".  If you do not believe, it's anything that you want to call it.  Or....maybe all belief and faith is magical thinking....especially if you do not believe or have faith.

But, the issue of the papacy has been hashed, rehashed, super rehashed, over hashed, and hashed until death on this board...If you believe Catholic doctrine and dogma (including those regarding the papacy), that's great and you can happily remain Catholic.  If you do not, you should not remain Catholic.  Pretty simple when all is said and done.  ;)
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: mike on March 22, 2013, 03:16:29 PM
And @choy, stop using the "we" pronoun. I have not authorized you to be my spokesman. Speak for yourself if you share your own opinions.

There is no "I" in Orthodoxy ;)

You are not Orthodox yet. Please, calm down your hyperenthusiasm a bit. I don't want you to burn down in a couple of month as several hyperenthusiastic converts or potential converts did.

And it's awkward to see self-proclaimed "defender of Orthodoxy" who no earlier than half a year ago used to be equally passionate defender of Papacy.

Moderation. Moderation is most important.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Papist on March 22, 2013, 03:17:27 PM
I find it funny that whenever some one wants to dismiss a position with which he or she does not agree, this person will simply call it "magical." And the debate is over. Rock crushes scissors, scissors cuts paper, paper covers rock, calling something "magic" nukes them all.

Meh, you have to admit that the theory that a Pope will get struck by a lightning bolt before preaching heresy is weird.
You have to admit that it's weird that we believe that Bread and Wine become the body and blood of Christ. You have to admit that it's weird that we believe that a man was born as the result of a virgin birth. You have to believe its weird that we believe that a man can rise from the grave.
BTW, where does Pastor aeternus teach that the pope will be struck by lightening before being allowed to preach heresy?
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Cyrillic on March 22, 2013, 03:20:36 PM
I find it funny that whenever some one wants to dismiss a position with which he or she does not agree, this person will simply call it "magical." And the debate is over. Rock crushes scissors, scissors cuts paper, paper covers rock, calling something "magic" nukes them all.

Meh, you have to admit that the theory that a Pope will get struck by a lightning bolt before preaching heresy is weird.
You have to admit that it's weird that we believe that Bread and Wine become the body and blood of Christ. You have to admit that it's weird that we believe that a man was born as the result of a virgin birth. You have to believe its weird that we believe that a man can rise from the grave.

I can see your point  :)

BTW, where does Pastor aeternus teach that the pope will be struck by lightening before being allowed to preach heresy?

Nowhere, I think. It's just a curious RC theologoumenon that's floating around the internet. But can a Pope teach heresy ex cathedra? And if he wants to do that will he be able to do that? This is no polemic, just a question.

quoting tags editted - MK
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: choy on March 22, 2013, 03:31:17 PM
And @choy, stop using the "we" pronoun. I have not authorized you to be my spokesman. Speak for yourself if you share your own opinions.

There is no "I" in Orthodoxy ;)

You are not Orthodox yet. Please, calm down your hyperenthusiasm a bit. I don't want you to burn down in a couple of month as several hyperenthusiastic converts or potential converts did.

And it's awkward to see self-proclaimed "defender of Orthodoxy" who no earlier than half a year ago used to be equally passionate defender of Papacy.

Moderation. Moderation is most important.

Well, as I stated, when I use "we" it is because it is from someone who qualifes as Orthodox who taught that to me.  So it is not from me, so it would also be wrong to simply just say "I".  Because as you said, I am not fully Orthodox, so what do I know.  ::)
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: choy on March 22, 2013, 03:35:09 PM
You have to admit that it's weird that we believe that Bread and Wine become the body and blood of Christ. You have to admit that it's weird that we believe that a man was born as the result of a virgin birth. You have to believe its weird that we believe that a man can rise from the grave.
BTW, where does Pastor aeternus teach that the pope will be struck by lightening before being allowed to preach heresy?

Nobody says that.  The Holy Spirit just robs the Pope of his free will to say something contrary to doctrine.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Cognomen on March 22, 2013, 03:38:41 PM
And @choy, stop using the "we" pronoun. I have not authorized you to be my spokesman. Speak for yourself if you share your own opinions.

There is no "I" in Orthodoxy ;)

You are not Orthodox yet. Please, calm down your hyperenthusiasm a bit. I don't want you to burn down in a couple of month as several hyperenthusiastic converts or potential converts did.

And it's awkward to see self-proclaimed "defender of Orthodoxy" who no earlier than half a year ago used to be equally passionate defender of Papacy.

Moderation. Moderation is most important.

I second this.

Choy, in a recent thread, I alluded to the proclamations and grand guidance you have given.  I hate it when catechumen is used derisively, but I have the same problem when it loses any meaning associated with someone receiving instruction.  We're all very pleased that you are becoming Orthodox and appreciate your zeal, but Michal's advice seems quite solid. Take this time to absorb the faith.  There will be plenty of time for the other stuff.  And don't take this as chastisement, just friendly advice.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: choy on March 22, 2013, 03:42:22 PM
And @choy, stop using the "we" pronoun. I have not authorized you to be my spokesman. Speak for yourself if you share your own opinions.

There is no "I" in Orthodoxy ;)

You are not Orthodox yet. Please, calm down your hyperenthusiasm a bit. I don't want you to burn down in a couple of month as several hyperenthusiastic converts or potential converts did.

And it's awkward to see self-proclaimed "defender of Orthodoxy" who no earlier than half a year ago used to be equally passionate defender of Papacy.

Moderation. Moderation is most important.

I second this.

Choy, in a recent thread, I alluded to the proclamations and grand guidance you have given.  I hate it when catechumen is used derisively, but I have the same problem when it loses any meaning associated with someone receiving instruction.  We're all very pleased that you are becoming Orthodox and appreciate your zeal, but Michal's advice seems quite solid. Take this time to absorb the faith.  There will be plenty of time for the other stuff.  And don't take this as chastisement, just friendly advice.

Am I being prejudiced here just becaue I am merely a catechumen?  Is someone suddenly imbuded with Orthodox knowledge upon Chrismation while remaining completely dumb prior to that?
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: choy on March 22, 2013, 03:43:21 PM
And isn't it so nice that a thread about someone's personal concerns is turned into a thread about someone else, now completely ignoring the spiritual needs of the thread starter?
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: J Michael on March 22, 2013, 03:46:05 PM
You have to admit that it's weird that we believe that Bread and Wine become the body and blood of Christ. You have to admit that it's weird that we believe that a man was born as the result of a virgin birth. You have to believe its weird that we believe that a man can rise from the grave.
BTW, where does Pastor aeternus teach that the pope will be struck by lightening before being allowed to preach heresy?

Nobody says that.  The Holy Spirit just robs the Pope of his free will to say something contrary to doctrine.

Really?  Where's that in either the Catechism or other Church documents? 
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: J Michael on March 22, 2013, 03:47:14 PM
And @choy, stop using the "we" pronoun. I have not authorized you to be my spokesman. Speak for yourself if you share your own opinions.

There is no "I" in Orthodoxy ;)

You are not Orthodox yet. Please, calm down your hyperenthusiasm a bit. I don't want you to burn down in a couple of month as several hyperenthusiastic converts or potential converts did.

And it's awkward to see self-proclaimed "defender of Orthodoxy" who no earlier than half a year ago used to be equally passionate defender of Papacy.

Moderation. Moderation is most important.

I second this.

Choy, in a recent thread, I alluded to the proclamations and grand guidance you have given.  I hate it when catechumen is used derisively, but I have the same problem when it loses any meaning associated with someone receiving instruction.  We're all very pleased that you are becoming Orthodox and appreciate your zeal, but Michal's advice seems quite solid. Take this time to absorb the faith.  There will be plenty of time for the other stuff.  And don't take this as chastisement, just friendly advice.

Am I being prejudiced here just becaue I am merely a catechumen?  Is someone suddenly imbuded with Orthodox knowledge upon Chrismation while remaining completely dumb prior to that?

Yes.....it's magic!  ;D ;D
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: J Michael on March 22, 2013, 03:47:56 PM
And isn't it so nice that a thread about someone's personal concerns is turned into a thread about someone else, now completely ignoring the spiritual needs of the thread starter?

 ;D  Welcome to OC.net   ;D
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Cognomen on March 22, 2013, 03:56:54 PM
This is so odd, I didn't expect to basically be told to stay Catholic on an Orthodox forum.

My main issues are theological, the social type things are just the icing on the cake so to speak.

You won't hear that from me.  I do, however, think the advice to prayerfully discern your path is good though.

As far as the 'magical' qualities of infallibility, I suppose I don't take too much issue with that as a concept, having been familiar with similar ones in Shia Islam.  The primary problem I have with it is that it seemed an innovation from, conservatively, the Christianity of the first thousand years (and within the Papacy itself).  The issue of papal infallibility's development is a rabbit hole we can go down, but suffice it to say that I don't believe that it is an authentic teaching of the Church.  Now that's pretty obvious, as I'm Orthodox, but I had to ask similar questions when searching for the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Maria on March 22, 2013, 04:13:06 PM
And @choy, stop using the "we" pronoun. I have not authorized you to be my spokesman. Speak for yourself if you share your own opinions.

There is no "I" in Orthodoxy ;)

You are not Orthodox yet. Please, calm down your hyperenthusiasm a bit. I don't want you to burn down in a couple of month as several hyperenthusiastic converts or potential converts did.

And it's awkward to see self-proclaimed "defender of Orthodoxy" who no earlier than half a year ago used to be equally passionate defender of Papacy.

Moderation. Moderation is most important.

I second this.

Choy, in a recent thread, I alluded to the proclamations and grand guidance you have given.  I hate it when catechumen is used derisively, but I have the same problem when it loses any meaning associated with someone receiving instruction.  We're all very pleased that you are becoming Orthodox and appreciate your zeal, but Michal's advice seems quite solid. Take this time to absorb the faith.  There will be plenty of time for the other stuff.  And don't take this as chastisement, just friendly advice.

I third this. As an Orthodox Christian, I try to give credit where credit is due. If my priest has said something in a sermon, I will mention that. If I have read something from a book or the Bible, then I will reference that book and include a quote if possible. Often, I will do a search by inserting a line in the google window to find out where I got that quote. When I use "we" and "us," I am usually referring to my own family.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Maria on March 22, 2013, 04:22:05 PM
This is so odd, I didn't expect to basically be told to stay Catholic on an Orthodox forum.

My main issues are theological, the social type things are just the icing on the cake so to speak.

You won't hear that from me.  I do, however, think the advice to prayerfully discern your path is good though.

As far as the 'magical' qualities of infallibility, I suppose I don't take too much issue with that as a concept, having been familiar with similar ones in Shia Islam.  The primary problem I have with it is that it seemed an innovation from, conservatively, the Christianity of the first thousand years (and within the Papacy itself).  The issue of papal infallibility's development is a rabbit hole we can go down, but suffice it to say that I don't believe that it is an authentic teaching of the Church.  Now that's pretty obvious, as I'm Orthodox, but I had to ask similar questions when searching for the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

Neither will I tell you to remain Catholic.

Frankly, I think that the Orthodox priests who have contacted a Catholic priest whenever an inquirer seeks instruction have crossed the line, even if their own bishop has instructed them to do so.

Those betrayed Catholics told me that they felt deceived and would never trust an Orthodox priest again. They were forced into letting the Orthodox priest call their Catholic priest when the priest told them, "I am going to call your priest. Do I have your permission?" They felt that they could not say, "No." They felt so betrayed by a Priest whom they trusted as they believed that the Priest was an 'Alter Christus," thus their very faith was shaken to the core.

One of those Orthodox Priests even told a Hindi to remain a Hindi.  ::) And that was not part of the Balamand Agreement. Where he got his ecumenist ideas, I have no clue. However, there is a movement even in Catholicism, where a Jewish inquirer is told to remain a Jew and become an even better Jew.

Well, the only way that a Jewish person can become a fulfilled Jew is to embrace the Messiah Christ by accepting Baptism in the Holy Orthodox Church.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: J Michael on March 22, 2013, 04:28:26 PM
This is so odd, I didn't expect to basically be told to stay Catholic on an Orthodox forum.

My main issues are theological, the social type things are just the icing on the cake so to speak.

You won't hear that from me.  I do, however, think the advice to prayerfully discern your path is good though.

As far as the 'magical' qualities of infallibility, I suppose I don't take too much issue with that as a concept, having been familiar with similar ones in Shia Islam.  The primary problem I have with it is that it seemed an innovation from, conservatively, the Christianity of the first thousand years (and within the Papacy itself).  The issue of papal infallibility's development is a rabbit hole we can go down, but suffice it to say that I don't believe that it is an authentic teaching of the Church.  Now that's pretty obvious, as I'm Orthodox, but I had to ask similar questions when searching for the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

Neither will I tell you to remain Catholic.

Frankly, I think that the Orthodox priests who have contacted a Catholic priest whenever an inquirer seeks instruction have crossed the line, even if their own bishop has instructed them to do so.

Those betrayed Catholics told me that they felt deceived and would never trust an Orthodox priest again. They were forced into letting the Orthodox priest call their Catholic priest when the priest told them, "I am going to call your priest. Do I have your permission?" They felt that they could not say, "No." They felt so betrayed by a Priest whom they trusted as they believed that the Priest was an 'Alter Christus," thus their very faith was shaken to the core.

One of those Orthodox Priests even told a Hindi to remain a Hindi.  ::) And that was not part of the Balamand Agreement. Where he got his ecumenist ideas, I have no clue. However, there is a movement even in Catholicism, where a Jewish inquirer is told to remain a Jew and become an even better Jew.

Well, the only way that a Jewish person can become a fulfilled Jew is to embrace Christ by accepting Baptism in the Holy Orthodox Church.

Or by embracing Christ by accepting Baptism in the  (non-Orthodox) Holy Catholic Church. ;)
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: sheenj on March 22, 2013, 04:29:40 PM
This is so odd, I didn't expect to basically be told to stay Catholic on an Orthodox forum.

My main issues are theological, the social type things are just the icing on the cake so to speak.

You won't hear that from me.  I do, however, think the advice to prayerfully discern your path is good though.

As far as the 'magical' qualities of infallibility, I suppose I don't take too much issue with that as a concept, having been familiar with similar ones in Shia Islam.  The primary problem I have with it is that it seemed an innovation from, conservatively, the Christianity of the first thousand years (and within the Papacy itself).  The issue of papal infallibility's development is a rabbit hole we can go down, but suffice it to say that I don't believe that it is an authentic teaching of the Church.  Now that's pretty obvious, as I'm Orthodox, but I had to ask similar questions when searching for the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

Neither will I tell you to remain Catholic.

Frankly, I think that the Orthodox priests who have contacted a Catholic priest whenever an inquirer seeks instruction have crossed the line, even if their own bishop has instructed them to do so.

Those betrayed Catholics told me that they felt deceived and would never trust an Orthodox priest again. They were forced into letting the Orthodox priest call their Catholic priest when the priest told them, "I am going to call your priest. Do I have your permission?" They felt that they could not say, "No." They felt so betrayed by a Priest whom they trusted as they believed that the Priest was an 'Alter Christus," thus their very faith was shaken to the core.

One of those Orthodox Priests even told a Hindi to remain a Hindi.  ::) And that was not part of the Balamand Agreement. Where he got his ecumenist ideas, I have no clue. However, there is a movement even in Catholicism, where a Jewish inquirer is told to remain a Jew and become an even better Jew.

Well, the only way that a Jewish person can become a fulfilled Jew is to embrace Christ by accepting Baptism in the Holy Orthodox Church.

Or by embracing Christ by accepting Baptism in the  (non-Orthodox) Holy Catholic Church. ;)

You don't consider yourself Orthodox?
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: J Michael on March 22, 2013, 04:36:35 PM
This is so odd, I didn't expect to basically be told to stay Catholic on an Orthodox forum.

My main issues are theological, the social type things are just the icing on the cake so to speak.

You won't hear that from me.  I do, however, think the advice to prayerfully discern your path is good though.

As far as the 'magical' qualities of infallibility, I suppose I don't take too much issue with that as a concept, having been familiar with similar ones in Shia Islam.  The primary problem I have with it is that it seemed an innovation from, conservatively, the Christianity of the first thousand years (and within the Papacy itself).  The issue of papal infallibility's development is a rabbit hole we can go down, but suffice it to say that I don't believe that it is an authentic teaching of the Church.  Now that's pretty obvious, as I'm Orthodox, but I had to ask similar questions when searching for the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

Neither will I tell you to remain Catholic.

Frankly, I think that the Orthodox priests who have contacted a Catholic priest whenever an inquirer seeks instruction have crossed the line, even if their own bishop has instructed them to do so.

Those betrayed Catholics told me that they felt deceived and would never trust an Orthodox priest again. They were forced into letting the Orthodox priest call their Catholic priest when the priest told them, "I am going to call your priest. Do I have your permission?" They felt that they could not say, "No." They felt so betrayed by a Priest whom they trusted as they believed that the Priest was an 'Alter Christus," thus their very faith was shaken to the core.

One of those Orthodox Priests even told a Hindi to remain a Hindi.  ::) And that was not part of the Balamand Agreement. Where he got his ecumenist ideas, I have no clue. However, there is a movement even in Catholicism, where a Jewish inquirer is told to remain a Jew and become an even better Jew.

Well, the only way that a Jewish person can become a fulfilled Jew is to embrace Christ by accepting Baptism in the Holy Orthodox Church.

Or by embracing Christ by accepting Baptism in the  (non-Orthodox) Holy Catholic Church. ;)

You don't consider yourself Orthodox?

I am an orthodox Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic Christian.  Changing the lower-case "o" to an upper-case "O" is problematic for many. ;)
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: mike on March 22, 2013, 05:02:56 PM
Am I being prejudiced here just becaue I am merely a catechumen?

By being a catechuman with a few-month-experience in Orthodoxy teaching inquirers with equal "experience" about faith? Mt. 15:14. Spend more time studying than proclaiming what "we" do.

Quote
Is someone suddenly imbuded with Orthodox knowledge upon Chrismation while remaining completely dumb prior to that?

No. Neither is the person who once wakes up and decides he does not believe in the pope anymore and makes a 180o turn. We need time to learn something. Less pomposity.

One of those Orthodox Priests even told a Hindi to remain a Hindi.  ::) And that was not part of the Balamand Agreement. Where he got his ecumenist ideas, I have no clue. However, there is a movement even in Catholicism, where a Jewish inquirer is told to remain a Jew and become an even better Jew.

Since the Balamand Agreement was not accepted bu the Orthodox Church could you stop your "true traditional in exile" ranting or at least move it to another one thread?
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Papist on March 22, 2013, 05:04:55 PM
I find it funny that whenever some one wants to dismiss a position with which he or she does not agree, this person will simply call it "magical." And the debate is over. Rock crushes scissors, scissors cuts paper, paper covers rock, calling something "magic" nukes them all.

Meh, you have to admit that the theory that a Pope will get struck by a lightning bolt before preaching heresy is weird.
You have to admit that it's weird that we believe that Bread and Wine become the body and blood of Christ. You have to admit that it's weird that we believe that a man was born as the result of a virgin birth. You have to believe its weird that we believe that a man can rise from the grave.

I can see your point  :)

BTW, where does Pastor aeternus teach that the pope will be struck by lightening before being allowed to preach heresy?

Nowhere, I think. It's just a curious RC theologoumenon that's floating around the internet. But can a Pope teach heresy ex cathedra? And if he wants to do that will he be able to do that? This is no polemic, just a question.

quoting tags editted - MK
I don't know what the mechanism is that God uses to keep the Pope from teaching heresy ex cathedra, just I don't what the mechanism is that God used to inspire the authors of the Holy Scriptures to write those scriptures, just as I don't know what the mechanism is that God uses to change bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ. All I know is that in each case, it is the action of the Holy Spirit that brings about the result.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Papist on March 22, 2013, 05:04:55 PM
You have to admit that it's weird that we believe that Bread and Wine become the body and blood of Christ. You have to admit that it's weird that we believe that a man was born as the result of a virgin birth. You have to believe its weird that we believe that a man can rise from the grave.
BTW, where does Pastor aeternus teach that the pope will be struck by lightening before being allowed to preach heresy?

Nobody says that.  The Holy Spirit just robs the Pope of his free will to say something contrary to doctrine.
Did the Holy Spirit rob people of their free will he inspired to authors of the Scriptures to write the sacred text? Perhaps you are thinking of the influence of God's Holy Spirit in a natural, rather than transcedent manner.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Maria on March 22, 2013, 05:08:22 PM
Am I being prejudiced here just becaue I am merely a catechumen?

By being a catechuman with a few-month-experience in Orthodoxy teaching inquirers with equal "experience" about faith? Mt. 15:14. Spend more time studying than proclaiming what "we" do.

Quote
Is someone suddenly imbuded with Orthodox knowledge upon Chrismation while remaining completely dumb prior to that?

No. Neither is the person who once wakes up and decides he does not believe in the pope anymore and makes a 180o turn. We need time to learn something. Less pomposity.

One of those Orthodox Priests even told a Hindi to remain a Hindi.  ::) And that was not part of the Balamand Agreement. Where he got his ecumenist ideas, I have no clue. However, there is a movement even in Catholicism, where a Jewish inquirer is told to remain a Jew and become an even better Jew.

Since the Balamand Agreement was not accepted bu the Orthodox Church could you stop your "true traditional in exile" ranting or at least move it to another one thread?

How so? I was told by Greek and Antiochian Priests that they were told by their bishops to follow that agreement, that it was binding.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Carl Kraeff (Second Chance) on March 22, 2013, 05:09:16 PM
...
If you believe Catholic doctrine and dogma (including those regarding the papacy), that's great and you can happily remain Catholic.  If you do not, you should not remain Catholic.  Pretty simple when all is said and done.  ;)

J Michael--Thank you for your wisdom and common-sense advice. May the Lord bless you and Melisine's spiritual quest.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: JamesRottnek on March 22, 2013, 05:20:34 PM
Am I being prejudiced here just becaue I am merely a catechumen?

By being a catechuman with a few-month-experience in Orthodoxy teaching inquirers with equal "experience" about faith? Mt. 15:14. Spend more time studying than proclaiming what "we" do.

Quote
Is someone suddenly imbuded with Orthodox knowledge upon Chrismation while remaining completely dumb prior to that?

No. Neither is the person who once wakes up and decides he does not believe in the pope anymore and makes a 180o turn. We need time to learn something. Less pomposity.

One of those Orthodox Priests even told a Hindi to remain a Hindi.  ::) And that was not part of the Balamand Agreement. Where he got his ecumenist ideas, I have no clue. However, there is a movement even in Catholicism, where a Jewish inquirer is told to remain a Jew and become an even better Jew.

Since the Balamand Agreement was not accepted bu the Orthodox Church could you stop your "true traditional in exile" ranting or at least move it to another one thread?

How so? I was told by Greek and Antiochian Priests that they were told by their bishops to follow that agreement, that it was binding.

"I was told by people....who were told by people," my goodness!  You've proven it!  You have cast out all doubts about your claim!
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: mike on March 22, 2013, 05:36:25 PM
How so? I was told by Greek and Antiochian Priests that they were told by their bishops to follow that agreement, that it was binding.

Not sure if they were wrong or it's just you plotting.

Quote from: http://oca.org/questions/romancatholicism/validity-of-roman-catholic-orders
Orthodox Christianity has not reached a consensus on the Balamand statement, in part because not all of the world’s Orthodox Churches participated in the gathering, and in part because controversy has risen over the “sister church” or “two lung” theory.

Quote from: http://www.cnewa.ca/default.aspx?ID=108&pagetypeID=9&sitecode=CA&pageno=3
In any case, the Orthodox side insisted that, since there was no consensus regarding Balamand, the same topic would have to be treated in more depth before the commission could return to its theological agenda.

The leadership of the MP also convinced the people and clergy that the Balamand and Chambesy documents were not approved by the church leadership and so there is no need for alarm, although we note that these documents were also not rejected or even evaluated properly.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Putnik Namernik on March 22, 2013, 05:41:36 PM
I find it funny that whenever some one wants to dismiss a position with which he or she does not agree, this person will simply call it "magical." And the debate is over. Rock crushes scissors, scissors cuts paper, paper covers rock, calling something "magic" nukes them all.

I can't think of any other way to describe it but magical. All of of a sudden you get a special super power, because you have been elected pope. No matter what you have ever believed or taught before.  

Don't Orthodox men get special "superpowers" too when they become ordained?  Don't Orthodox priests get some kind of special superpower when ordained to the episcopate?  I mean, just a few words and a laying on of hands endows them with the ability to pass on Apostolic succession, ordain priests, etc., etc.   How is that essentially different?  Is it "magical thinking" or "magic" that make the bread and wine become His Body and His Blood?  After all, they still look like and taste like bread and wine....

If you believe, then it's not "magical thinking".  If you do not believe, it's anything that you want to call it.  Or....maybe all belief and faith is magical thinking....especially if you do not believe or have faith.

But, the issue of the papacy has been hashed, rehashed, super rehashed, over hashed, and hashed until death on this board...If you believe Catholic doctrine and dogma (including those regarding the papacy), that's great and you can happily remain Catholic.  If you do not, you should not remain Catholic.  Pretty simple when all is said and done.  ;)

They do, but that does not make then infallable...they still sin and make mistakes...
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Maria on March 22, 2013, 05:48:44 PM
How so? I was told by Greek and Antiochian Priests that they were told by their bishops to follow that agreement, that it was binding.

Not sure if they were wrong or it's just you plotting.

Quote from: http://oca.org/questions/romancatholicism/validity-of-roman-catholic-orders
Orthodox Christianity has not reached a consensus on the Balamand statement, in part because not all of the world’s Orthodox Churches participated in the gathering, and in part because controversy has risen over the “sister church” or “two lung” theory.

Quote from: http://www.cnewa.ca/default.aspx?ID=108&pagetypeID=9&sitecode=CA&pageno=3
In any case, the Orthodox side insisted that, since there was no consensus regarding Balamand, the same topic would have to be treated in more depth before the commission could return to its theological agenda.

The leadership of the MP also convinced the people and clergy that the Balamand and Chambesy documents were not approved by the church leadership and so there is no need for alarm, although we note that these documents were also not rejected or even evaluated properly.

Neither am I wrong in this instance, nor am I plotting.
Just telling the truth, nothing more.

Yes, please read your "infallible" quotes, Michal. Only a few jurisdictions agreed to this agreement: Greece, Antiochians, and a few others. Russia and the OCA did not. So of course, the Slavic Orthodox will say that there was no consensus among all the Orthodox.

However, the Greek and the Antiochian priests and bishops with whom I have consulted all agreed that this Balamand Agreement was binding, and that is why they hesitated to receive Catholics, but would receive Protestants without hesitation. Weird, isn't it?

Nevertheless, the Catholic Church in Los Angeles has graciously received (by confession of faith or by Confirmation) a lot of Greek Orthodox who want their children to have a parochial school education and a discount too. So, it seems awfully one-sided. Not only that, it is sheep-stealing by offering discounts.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Putnik Namernik on March 22, 2013, 05:54:31 PM
And @choy, stop using the "we" pronoun. I have not authorized you to be my spokesman. Speak for yourself if you share your own opinions.

There is no "I" in Orthodoxy ;)

You are not Orthodox yet. Please, calm down your hyperenthusiasm a bit. I don't want you to burn down in a couple of month as several hyperenthusiastic converts or potential converts did.

And it's awkward to see self-proclaimed "defender of Orthodoxy" who no earlier than half a year ago used to be equally passionate defender of Papacy.

Moderation. Moderation is most important.

I second this.

Choy, in a recent thread, I alluded to the proclamations and grand guidance you have given.  I hate it when catechumen is used derisively, but I have the same problem when it loses any meaning associated with someone receiving instruction.  We're all very pleased that you are becoming Orthodox and appreciate your zeal, but Michal's advice seems quite solid. Take this time to absorb the faith.  There will be plenty of time for the other stuff.  And don't take this as chastisement, just friendly advice.

Am I being prejudiced here just becaue I am merely a catechumen?  Is someone suddenly imbuded with Orthodox knowledge upon Chrismation while remaining completely dumb prior to that?

Don't despair...some might say it with good intentions others not so.  Take it as just one of many temptations-missunderstandings that an individual comes accross in his-her life. Glory to God!
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Maria on March 22, 2013, 05:55:47 PM
Am I being prejudiced here just becaue I am merely a catechumen?

By being a catechuman with a few-month-experience in Orthodoxy teaching inquirers with equal "experience" about faith? Mt. 15:14. Spend more time studying than proclaiming what "we" do.

Quote
Is someone suddenly imbuded with Orthodox knowledge upon Chrismation while remaining completely dumb prior to that?

No. Neither is the person who once wakes up and decides he does not believe in the pope anymore and makes a 180o turn. We need time to learn something. Less pomposity.

One of those Orthodox Priests even told a Hindi to remain a Hindi.  ::) And that was not part of the Balamand Agreement. Where he got his ecumenist ideas, I have no clue. However, there is a movement even in Catholicism, where a Jewish inquirer is told to remain a Jew and become an even better Jew.

Since the Balamand Agreement was not accepted bu the Orthodox Church could you stop your "true traditional in exile" ranting or at least move it to another one thread?

How so? I was told by Greek and Antiochian Priests that they were told by their bishops to follow that agreement, that it was binding.

"I was told by people....who were told by people," my goodness!  You've proven it!  You have cast out all doubts about your claim!

I suppose that if your priest told you to fast, and said that his bishop enforced the fast, then you would question the priest's sanity.

Typical response of a teenager.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Peter J on March 22, 2013, 08:46:53 PM
You have to admit that it's weird that we believe that Bread and Wine become the body and blood of Christ. You have to admit that it's weird that we believe that a man was born as the result of a virgin birth. You have to believe its weird that we believe that a man can rise from the grave.
BTW, where does Pastor aeternus teach that the pope will be struck by lightening before being allowed to preach heresy?

Nobody says that.  The Holy Spirit just robs the Pope of his free will to say something contrary to doctrine.

Well that's weird.  :o That would be like if St. Peter, or St. Paul, or St. James or somebody, wrote an infallible book of the bible!
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Peter J on March 22, 2013, 08:49:47 PM
Well, you have the Catholics here telling you to go Orthodox

Catholics? I only remember one Catholic poster saying anything like that, and I just got through reading this thread from beginning to end. (Note: I'm not recommending reading it in one sitting like that.)

...
If you believe Catholic doctrine and dogma (including those regarding the papacy), that's great and you can happily remain Catholic.  If you do not, you should not remain Catholic.  Pretty simple when all is said and done.  ;)

J Michael--Thank you for your wisdom and common-sense advice. May the Lord bless you and Melisine's spiritual quest.

Well there's a nice unbiased compliment.

(Sorry if that sounded sarcastic. ;))

Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Shiny on March 22, 2013, 08:50:58 PM
Good to see you inquiring in the Orthodox faith Peter J, hope all is well.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: orthonorm on March 22, 2013, 09:04:07 PM
Moderation. Moderation is most important.

So says a moderator . . .
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Peter J on March 22, 2013, 10:20:20 PM
I find it funny that whenever some one wants to dismiss a position with which he or she does not agree, this person will simply call it "magical." And the debate is over. Rock crushes scissors, scissors cuts paper, paper covers rock, calling something "magic" nukes them all.

You're thinking of "Gargamel takes all".
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Peter J on March 22, 2013, 10:21:39 PM
Why anyone would join a Church of which he's not sure that it is the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church from the creed is beyond me.

Um ... O-kay.

 ::)
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: sedevacantist on March 22, 2013, 10:54:49 PM
This is so odd, I didn't expect to basically be told to stay Catholic on an Orthodox forum.

My main issues are theological, the social type things are just the icing on the cake so to speak.
Sorry to have to tell you, and I know this may sound shocking, but the fact is  you are actually not Catholic, you have joined the abominable vatican 2 sect, the true Church of Christ has not had a real pope since 1958, please inform yourself here and save your soul. start with the section on the invalid mass.
 http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: orthonorm on March 22, 2013, 10:59:26 PM
This is so odd, I didn't expect to basically be told to stay Catholic on an Orthodox forum.

My main issues are theological, the social type things are just the icing on the cake so to speak.
Sorry to have to tell you . . . .

This is one of the many stock opening phrases I love.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Asteriktos on March 22, 2013, 11:01:15 PM
ATTN: Moderators

Please modify the title of this thread to:

"the magical thinking of infallibility never made any sense"

Thank you for your time.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Melesine on March 22, 2013, 11:02:11 PM
This is so odd, I didn't expect to basically be told to stay Catholic on an Orthodox forum.

My main issues are theological, the social type things are just the icing on the cake so to speak.
Sorry to have to tell you, and I know this may sound shocking, but the fact is  you are actually not Catholic, you have joined the abominable vatican 2 sect, the true Church of Christ has not had a real pope since 1958, please inform yourself here and save your soul. start with the section on the invalid mass.
 http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/


LOLOLOL ok so the Sedes want me at least HAHAHA
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: choy on March 22, 2013, 11:05:56 PM
Well that's weird.  :o That would be like if St. Peter, or St. Paul, or St. James or somebody, wrote an infallible book of the bible!

Yes, of course St. Peter is so infallible that he never needed to be corrected by someone like St. Paul  ::) ::) ::)
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: orthonorm on March 22, 2013, 11:06:40 PM
This is so odd, I didn't expect to basically be told to stay Catholic on an Orthodox forum.

My main issues are theological, the social type things are just the icing on the cake so to speak.
Sorry to have to tell you, and I know this may sound shocking, but the fact is  you are actually not Catholic, you have joined the abominable vatican 2 sect, the true Church of Christ has not had a real pope since 1958, please inform yourself here and save your soul. start with the section on the invalid mass.
 http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/


LOLOLOL ok so the Sedes want me at least HAHAHA

This is when you should really reflect deeply on some of Marx's best thought.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: orthonorm on March 22, 2013, 11:09:38 PM
Well that's weird.  :o That would be like if St. Peter, or St. Paul, or St. James or somebody, wrote an infallible book of the bible!

Yes, of course St. Peter is so infallible that he never needed to be corrected by someone like St. Paul  ::) ::) ::)

Weak sauce.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: choy on March 22, 2013, 11:10:45 PM
I don't know what the mechanism is that God uses to keep the Pope from teaching heresy ex cathedra,

It's called "not putting such a thing into existence."
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: orthonorm on March 22, 2013, 11:12:53 PM
I don't know what the mechanism is that God uses to keep the Pope from teaching heresy ex cathedra,

It's called "not putting such a thing into existence."

Stop while you are behind.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Agabus on March 22, 2013, 11:19:14 PM
I don't know what the mechanism is that God uses to keep the Pope from teaching heresy ex cathedra,

It's called "not putting such a thing into existence."

Stop while you are behind.
It's the only place from which one should lead.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: stanley123 on March 22, 2013, 11:40:14 PM
Sorry to have to tell you, and I know this may sound shocking, but the fact is  you are actually not Catholic, you have joined the abominable vatican 2 sect, the true Church of Christ has not had a real pope since 1958, please inform yourself here and save your soul. start with the section on the invalid mass.
 http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/
Who was it who decided that Pope Francis is not a "real pope"? Who chose the Dimond brothers to make these decisions?
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Melesine on March 22, 2013, 11:52:16 PM
Forget it, it's Lent
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: orthonorm on March 22, 2013, 11:57:19 PM



I hope so. I got easily irritated by people who think they can speak on behalf of some group I belong to. You can call it my pet issue.

So is there an official document I can review on the steps necessary to be allowed to speak? Or do you just have to make it through the hazing? I figured I'd ask you since you seem to be the designated person.

People disagreeing ain't stopping people from speaking.

Arachne will likely explain to you something about how communities work in some wistful manner and liken this to something like a community.

It ain't.

If you abide by the forum rules, which are rather liberal for what this place actually is, an online forum for Orthodox and about Orthodoxy, and not what it ain't, a community, you will be allowed to speak all you want.

See that number next to my avatar.

That's lotsa words. I've been given a very slight reprimand twice. And I am a jerk.

Enjoy.

Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Melesine on March 23, 2013, 12:03:12 AM
Orthonorm, I'd appreciate if you'd consider editing out the quote of my post as I deleted it due to trying to maintain charity. Regardless, I won't be commenting on it again if it stays.

I'm really not interested in engaging in one upmanship by witticisms, it's already a weakness of mine so I don't need to be hanging out places where it's a sport and tempt myself.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Papist on March 23, 2013, 12:17:04 AM
Good to see you inquiring in the Orthodox faith Peter J, hope all is well.
I miss the period in which he was a sedevacantist.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Maria on March 23, 2013, 12:23:19 AM
Orthonorm, I'd appreciate if you'd consider editing out the quote of my post as I deleted it due to trying to maintain charity. Regardless, I won't be commenting on it again if it stays.

I'm really not interested in engaging in one upmanship by witticisms, it's already a weakness of mine so I don't need to be hanging out places where it's a sport and tempt myself.


I think you will find that certain people become sarcastic and engage "in one upmanship" during Great Lent.
Some people on this board hide their password so that they will not be tempted to return until after Pascha.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: orthonorm on March 23, 2013, 12:52:09 AM
Orthonorm, I'd appreciate if you'd consider editing out the quote of my post as I deleted it due to trying to maintain charity. Regardless, I won't be commenting on it again if it stays.

I'm really not interested in engaging in one upmanship by witticisms, it's already a weakness of mine so I don't need to be hanging out places where it's a sport and tempt myself.


I think you will find that certain people become sarcastic and engage "in one upmanship" during Great Lent.
Some people on this board hide their password so that they will not be tempted to return until after Pascha.

I am always like this. Don't blame Lent.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: orthonorm on March 23, 2013, 12:53:35 AM
Orthonorm, I'd appreciate if you'd consider editing out the quote of my post as I deleted it due to trying to maintain charity. Regardless, I won't be commenting on it again if it stays.

I'm really not interested in engaging in one upmanship by witticisms, it's already a weakness of mine so I don't need to be hanging out places where it's a sport and tempt myself.


I can't edit it now. It is pass the time otherwise I would gladly do so.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Peter J on March 23, 2013, 08:07:30 AM
Sorry to have to tell you . . . .

This is one of the many stock opening phrases I love.

I like "Good news everyone."
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Peter J on March 23, 2013, 08:22:09 AM
Well that's weird.  :o That would be like if St. Peter, or St. Paul, or St. James or somebody, wrote an infallible book of the bible!

Yes, of course St. Peter is so infallible that he never needed to be corrected by someone like St. Paul  ::) ::) ::)

You're silly. Obviously, St. Peter forgot to flip on his Infallibility Switch on that occasion.

[file InfallibilitySwitch.jpg not found]
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Peter J on March 23, 2013, 08:24:04 AM
Good to see you inquiring in the Orthodox faith Peter J, hope all is well.
I miss the period in which he was a sedevacantist.

Heh. You mean you wish the conclave had taken longer? :)
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Cyrillic on March 23, 2013, 08:24:49 AM
I don't think that Pastor Aeternus included hypocrisy in the list of things that the Pope as successor of St. Peter would be protected from.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: choy on March 23, 2013, 10:20:15 AM
I don't think that Pastor Aeternus included hypocrisy in the list of things that the Pope as successor of St. Peter would be protected from.

Of course it does.  If he declares whatever it is that makes him hypocrisy as dogma, then it becomes required belief.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Cavaradossi on March 23, 2013, 11:37:18 AM
I'm positive that our priests do not contact the priests of Roman Catholic candidates (the Greeks are happy to snatch up converts as quickly as possible here). Perhaps Maria hails from an alternate dimension or something.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Clemente on March 23, 2013, 01:05:58 PM
I've been torn between the CC and OC for quite awhile now. I'm a convert to the CC, but I felt a strong pull to the OC even before becoming Catholic. Since then, I've struggled to make sense of it all.

I do not understand the Catholic veneration of the papal office. I hear lots of comments about how regardless of what he may have said or done or taught as Bishop that he is Pope now and they support him no matter what, because he is reserved from teaching false doctrine or he will no longer be Pope. People actually believe that God will strike him down before he would have the opportunity to promulgate something false.  ???

I'm now starting to see the problem with declaring something ( a council) or someone ( the Pope) infallible at the outset instead of after the fact when the orthodoxy of what is declared can be confirmed or rejected.

Universal jurisdiction seems to be naturally tied to papal infallibility and creates the situation where submission to Rome is more important than orthodox belief. Hence we have a bunch of people that are considered Catholic but don't agree with Catholic teaching on many issues. it's no longer about orthodox belief it's all about being in communion with the Pope. Because once a Catholic always a Catholic.

None of this makes any sense to me and now I realize I never should have become Catholic in the first place.

Melesine,

I think you should become Orthodox--I think everyone should. But you especially. You question the essence of Roman Catholicism--the papal office. As long as this continues, you will not be happy as a RC. This is the fundamental reason why I didn't become RC.

I do not know if you will be happy as an Orthodox Christian, but I pray you become one. Forget about whether your existing RC priest approves or not. I cannot fathom why the opinion of a heterodox cleric should have any baring on your decision to become part of Christ's Bride, the Orthodox Catholic Church.

I pray the Spirit calls you home to Orthodoxy.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Apotheoun on March 23, 2013, 01:12:25 PM
I second this.

Choy, in a recent thread, I alluded to the proclamations and grand guidance you have given.  I hate it when catechumen is used derisively, but I have the same problem when it loses any meaning associated with someone receiving instruction.  We're all I am very pleased that you are becoming Orthodox and appreciate your zeal, but Michal's advice seems quite solid. Take this time to absorb the faith.  There will be plenty of time for the other stuff.  And don't take this as chastisement, just friendly advice.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Apotheoun on March 23, 2013, 01:20:29 PM
BTW, where does Pastor aeternus teach that the pope will be struck by lightening before being allowed to preach heresy?
Lightning did strike St. Peter's basilica shortly after Pope Benedict resigned.   ;D

(https://sites.google.com/site/thetaboriclight/metamorphosis/lightning_vatican.jpg)
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Peter J on March 23, 2013, 01:52:04 PM
I've been torn between the CC and OC for quite awhile now. I'm a convert to the CC, but I felt a strong pull to the OC even before becoming Catholic. Since then, I've struggled to make sense of it all.

I do not understand the Catholic veneration of the papal office. I hear lots of comments about how regardless of what he may have said or done or taught as Bishop that he is Pope now and they support him no matter what, because he is reserved from teaching false doctrine or he will no longer be Pope. People actually believe that God will strike him down before he would have the opportunity to promulgate something false.  ???

I'm now starting to see the problem with declaring something ( a council) or someone ( the Pope) infallible at the outset instead of after the fact when the orthodoxy of what is declared can be confirmed or rejected.

Universal jurisdiction seems to be naturally tied to papal infallibility and creates the situation where submission to Rome is more important than orthodox belief. Hence we have a bunch of people that are considered Catholic but don't agree with Catholic teaching on many issues. it's no longer about orthodox belief it's all about being in communion with the Pope. Because once a Catholic always a Catholic.

None of this makes any sense to me and now I realize I never should have become Catholic in the first place.

Melesine,

I think you should become Orthodox--I think everyone should. But you especially. You question the essence of Roman Catholicism--the papal office.

So do I. (Not long ago I would have added "and so does Choy", but that example doesn't seem very helpful to my point, now that he's planning on become Orthodox.  :)  :-[  ;D )
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Maria on March 23, 2013, 02:10:24 PM
I've been torn between the CC and OC for quite awhile now. I'm a convert to the CC, but I felt a strong pull to the OC even before becoming Catholic. Since then, I've struggled to make sense of it all.

I do not understand the Catholic veneration of the papal office. I hear lots of comments about how regardless of what he may have said or done or taught as Bishop that he is Pope now and they support him no matter what, because he is reserved from teaching false doctrine or he will no longer be Pope. People actually believe that God will strike him down before he would have the opportunity to promulgate something false.  ???

I'm now starting to see the problem with declaring something ( a council) or someone ( the Pope) infallible at the outset instead of after the fact when the orthodoxy of what is declared can be confirmed or rejected.

Universal jurisdiction seems to be naturally tied to papal infallibility and creates the situation where submission to Rome is more important than orthodox belief. Hence we have a bunch of people that are considered Catholic but don't agree with Catholic teaching on many issues. it's no longer about orthodox belief it's all about being in communion with the Pope. Because once a Catholic always a Catholic.

None of this makes any sense to me and now I realize I never should have become Catholic in the first place.

Melesine,

I think you should become Orthodox--I think everyone should. But you especially. You question the essence of Roman Catholicism--the papal office.

So do I. (Not long ago I would have added "and so does Choy", but that example doesn't seem very helpful to my point, now that he's planning on become Orthodox.  :)  :-[  ;D )

So did I. When Papal infallibility and Papal supremacy fell, then I decided that I could no longer receive communion in the Roman Catholic or Byzantine Catholic Church. Although my Catholic priest told me that I could receive communion as long as I was struggling to be a Catholic under the Pope, I no longer believed in the Papacy. To continue to receive communion after that point would be hypocritical.

Within six months my family and I were received into the Greek Orthodox Church by Chrismation.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: J Michael on March 23, 2013, 02:20:59 PM
This is so odd, I didn't expect to basically be told to stay Catholic on an Orthodox forum.

My main issues are theological, the social type things are just the icing on the cake so to speak.
Sorry to have to tell you, and I know this may sound shocking, but the fact is  you are actually not Catholic, you have joined the abominable vatican 2 sect, the true Church of Christ has not had a real pope since 1958, please inform yourself here and save your soul. start with the section on the invalid mass.
 http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/


LOLOLOL ok so the Sedes want me at least HAHAHA

This is when you should really reflect deeply on some of Marx's best thought.

Just one of Marx's best thoughts:
(http://emotfit.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/groucho-marx.jpg?w=300&h=225)

Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: J Michael on March 23, 2013, 02:25:16 PM
BTW, where does Pastor aeternus teach that the pope will be struck by lightening before being allowed to preach heresy?
Lightning did strike St. Peter's basilica shortly after Pope Benedict resigned.   ;D

(https://sites.google.com/site/thetaboriclight/metamorphosis/lightning_vatican.jpg)

Last I heard, it missed Pope Benedict, though.  ;D
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: orthonorm on March 23, 2013, 02:28:17 PM
This is so odd, I didn't expect to basically be told to stay Catholic on an Orthodox forum.

My main issues are theological, the social type things are just the icing on the cake so to speak.
Sorry to have to tell you, and I know this may sound shocking, but the fact is  you are actually not Catholic, you have joined the abominable vatican 2 sect, the true Church of Christ has not had a real pope since 1958, please inform yourself here and save your soul. start with the section on the invalid mass.
 http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/


LOLOLOL ok so the Sedes want me at least HAHAHA

This is when you should really reflect deeply on some of Marx's best thought.

Just one of Marx's best thoughts:
(http://emotfit.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/groucho-marx.jpg?w=300&h=225)



I was thinking more along the lines of this Marxist nugget:

(http://naturalcuriosities.com/sites/naturalcuriosities.com/files/imagecache/product_full/Q_Marx_fr_web_0.jpg)
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: IoanC on March 23, 2013, 02:29:25 PM
I don't think people take papal infallibility so seriously nowadays. The world has emancipated ever since the introduction of this false idea (thus, not orthodox) of the infallibility of one person who is supposed to replace the role of Christ who actively leads the Church (the orthodox belief). So, over time people have become more aware that it is not normal to think that we are infallible and the popes are more in tune with reality, more flexible. The last pope even admitted that he was no longer fitted for the job -- in other words, he admitted he was very much fallible which in itself is an act of humility and one that can save the world.  
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Apotheoun on March 23, 2013, 02:29:43 PM
BTW, where does Pastor aeternus teach that the pope will be struck by lightening before being allowed to preach heresy?
Lightning did strike St. Peter's basilica shortly after Pope Benedict resigned.   ;D

(https://sites.google.com/site/thetaboriclight/metamorphosis/lightning_vatican.jpg)

Last I heard, it missed Pope Benedict, though.  ;D
Never question God's aim.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: lovesupreme on March 23, 2013, 03:17:25 PM
Please don't take the advice of a fresh-off-the-streets catechumen to heart, but this is what I would do:

First, ask yourself: "Do I believe that the Holy Orthodox Church is the Church that Christ founded?"
Then, ask yourself: "If I'm wrong, do I believe I'm going to hell?"

I struggled briefly between the two churches. I ultimately came to accept that I could never have epistemological certainty with regards to where I should be. Once that sunk in, I looked to the Church that I believed offered the fullest expression of Faith, and that Church was the Holy Orthodox Church. Then, I began (I say "began" because, of course, I still struggle) to place my life in God's hands.

I don't believe that people go to hell because they don't belong to the right Church. I believe that God looks into the inner heart of each of his servants and judges them there. That said, I believe that the Holy Orthodox Church offers us the clearest way to salvation, without errors that might cause some to stumble (and I believe that the fillioque and papal infallibility are such errors).
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: sedevacantist on March 23, 2013, 03:23:10 PM
Our Lord made St. Peter the first pope, entrusted to him His entire flock, and gave
him supreme authority in the universal Church of Christ.   
 
John 21:15‐17‐“Jesus saith to Simon Peter: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? 
He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee.  He saith to him: Feed
my lambs.  He saith to him again: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? He saith
to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee.  He saith to him: Feed my
lambs.  He saith to him a third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me?  Peter
was grieved, because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he
aid to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee.  He
said to him: Feed my sheep.”
 
     And with the supreme authority that Our Lord Jesus Christ conferred upon St. Peter
(and his successors, the popes) comes what is called Papal Infallibility.  Papal Infallibility
is inseparable from Papal Supremacy – there was no point for Christ to make St. Peter
the head of His Church (as Christ clearly did) if St. Peter or his successors, the popes,
could err when exercising that supreme authority to teach on a point of Faith.  The
supreme authority must be unfailing on binding matters of Faith and morals or else it is
no true authority from Christ at all.   
 
     Papal Infallibility does not mean that a pope cannot err at all and it does not mean
that a pope cannot lose his soul and be damned in Hell for grave sin.  It means that the
successors of St. Peter (the popes of the Catholic Church) cannot err when
authoritatively teaching on a point of Faith or morals to be held by the entire Church of
Christ.  We find the promise of the unfailing faith for St. Peter and his successors
referred to by Christ in Luke 22.
 
Luke 22:31‐32‐ “And the Lord said: Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to
have all of you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that
thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren.” 
 
     Satan desired to sift all the Apostles (plural) like wheat, but Jesus prayed for Simon
Peter (singular), that his faith fail not.  Jesus is saying that St. Peter and his successors
(the popes of the Catholic Church) have an unfailing faith when authoritatively teaching
a point of faith or morals to be held by the entire Church of Christ.   
 
Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, 1870, ex cathedra:
“SO, THIS GIFT OF TRUTH AND A NEVER FAILING FAITH WAS
DIVINELY CONFERRED UPON PETER AND HIS SUCCESSORS IN THIS
CHAIR...”10
 
 Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, 1870, ex cathedra:
“... the See of St. Peter always remains unimpaired by any error, according to
the divine promise of our Lord the Savior made to the chief of His disciples: ‘I
have prayed for thee [Peter], that thy faith fail not ...’”11 
 
And this truth has been held since the earliest times in the Catholic Church.     
 
Pope St. Gelasius I, epistle 42, or Decretal de recipiendis et non recipiendis libris, 495:
“Accordingly, the see of Peter the Apostle of the Church of Rome is first, having
neither spot, nor wrinkle, nor anything of this kind (Eph. 5:27).”12
 
11
     The word “infallible” actually means “cannot fail” or “unfailing.”  Therefore, the very
term Papal Infallibility comes directly from Christ’s promise to St. Peter (and his
successors) in Luke 22, that Peter has an unfailing Faith.  Though this truth was believed
since the beginning of the Church, it was specifically defined as a dogma at the First
Vatican Council in 1870.
 
Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, 1870, Session 4, Chap. 4:
“...the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra [from the Chair of Peter], that
is,  when  carrying  out  the  duty  of  the  pastor  and  teacher  of  all  Christians  in
accord  with  his  supreme  apostolic  authority  he  explains  a  doctrine  of  faith  or
morals to be held by the universal Church... operates with that infallibility with
which  the  divine  Redeemer  wished  that  His  Church  be  instructed  in  defining
doctrine  on  faith  and  morals;  and  so  such  definitions  of  the  Roman  Pontiff
from himself, but not from the consensus of the Church, are unalterable.”13
 
      But how does one know when a pope is exercising his unfailing Faith to infallibly
teach from the Chair of St. Peter?  The answer is that we know from the language that
the pope uses or the manner in which the pope teaches.  Vatican I defined two
requirements which must be fulfilled: 1) when the pope is carrying out his duty as
pastor and teacher of all Christians in accord with his supreme apostolic authority; 2)
when he explains a doctrine on faith or morals to be held by the entire Church of Christ.   
A pope can fulfill both of these requirements in just one line, by anathematizing a false
opinion (such as many dogmatic councils) or by saying “By our apostolic authority we
declare...” or by saying “We believe, profess, and teach” or by using words of similar
importance and meaning, which indicate that the pope is teaching the whole Church on
Faith in a definitive and binding fashion.
 
     So, when a pope teaches from the Chair of Peter in the manner stipulated above he
cannot be wrong.  If he could be wrong, then the Church of Christ could be officially led
into error, and Christ’s promise to St. Peter and His Church would fail (which is
impossible).  That which is taught from the Chair of Peter by the popes of the Catholic
Church is the teaching of Jesus Christ Himself.  To reject that which is taught by the
popes from the Chair of Peter is simply to despise Jesus Christ Himself.   
 
Luke 10:16‐ “He that heareth you, heareth me: and he that despiseth you
despiseth me...” 
 
Matthew 18:17 ‐“And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the
heathen and publican.” 
 
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, 1896:
12
“... Christ instituted a living, authoritative and permanent Magisterium... If it
could in any way be false, an evident contradiction follows; for then God
Himself would be the author of error in man.”14
 
http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/2nd_edition_final.pdf
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: mike on March 23, 2013, 04:10:42 PM
I hope so. I got easily irritated by people who think they can speak on behalf of some group I belong to. You can call it my pet issue.

So is there an official document I can review on the steps necessary to be allowed to speak? Or do you just have to make it through the hazing? I figured I'd ask you since you seem to be the designated person.

To speak for me? Sorry, but I won't allow you that. I can speak for myself.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Maria on March 23, 2013, 05:07:33 PM
Our Lord made St. Peter the first pope, entrusted to him His entire flock, and gave
him supreme authority in the universal Church of Christ.   
 
John 21:15‐17‐“Jesus saith to Simon Peter: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? 
He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee.  He saith to him: Feed
my lambs.  He saith to him again: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? He saith
to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee.  He saith to him: Feed my
lambs.  He saith to him a third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me?  Peter
was grieved, because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he
aid to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee.  He
said to him: Feed my sheep.”
 
     And with the supreme authority that Our Lord Jesus Christ conferred upon St. Peter
(and his successors, the popes) comes what is called Papal Infallibility.  Papal Infallibility
is inseparable from Papal Supremacy – there was no point for Christ to make St. Peter
the head of His Church (as Christ clearly did) if St. Peter or his successors, the popes,
could err when exercising that supreme authority to teach on a point of Faith.  The
supreme authority must be unfailing on binding matters of Faith and morals or else it is
no true authority from Christ at all.   
 
     Papal Infallibility does not mean that a pope cannot err at all and it does not mean
that a pope cannot lose his soul and be damned in Hell for grave sin.  It means that the
successors of St. Peter (the popes of the Catholic Church) cannot err when
authoritatively teaching on a point of Faith or morals to be held by the entire Church of
Christ.  We find the promise of the unfailing faith for St. Peter and his successors
referred to by Christ in Luke 22.
 
Luke 22:31‐32‐ “And the Lord said: Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to
have all of you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that
thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren.” 
 
     Satan desired to sift all the Apostles (plural) like wheat, but Jesus prayed for Simon
Peter (singular), that his faith fail not.  Jesus is saying that St. Peter and his successors
(the popes of the Catholic Church) have an unfailing faith when authoritatively teaching
a point of faith or morals to be held by the entire Church of Christ.   
 
Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, 1870, ex cathedra:
“SO, THIS GIFT OF TRUTH AND A NEVER FAILING FAITH WAS
DIVINELY CONFERRED UPON PETER AND HIS SUCCESSORS IN THIS
CHAIR...”10
 
 Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, 1870, ex cathedra:
“... the See of St. Peter always remains unimpaired by any error, according to
the divine promise of our Lord the Savior made to the chief of His disciples: ‘I
have prayed for thee [Peter], that thy faith fail not ...’”11 
 
And this truth has been held since the earliest times in the Catholic Church.     
 
Pope St. Gelasius I, epistle 42, or Decretal de recipiendis et non recipiendis libris, 495:
“Accordingly, the see of Peter the Apostle of the Church of Rome is first, having
neither spot, nor wrinkle, nor anything of this kind (Eph. 5:27).”12
 
11
     The word “infallible” actually means “cannot fail” or “unfailing.”  Therefore, the very
term Papal Infallibility comes directly from Christ’s promise to St. Peter (and his
successors) in Luke 22, that Peter has an unfailing Faith.  Though this truth was believed
since the beginning of the Church, it was specifically defined as a dogma at the First
Vatican Council in 1870.
 
Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, 1870, Session 4, Chap. 4:
“...the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra [from the Chair of Peter], that
is,  when  carrying  out  the  duty  of  the  pastor  and  teacher  of  all  Christians  in
accord  with  his  supreme  apostolic  authority  he  explains  a  doctrine  of  faith  or
morals to be held by the universal Church... operates with that infallibility with
which  the  divine  Redeemer  wished  that  His  Church  be  instructed  in  defining
doctrine  on  faith  and  morals;  and  so  such  definitions  of  the  Roman  Pontiff
from himself, but not from the consensus of the Church, are unalterable.”13
 
      But how does one know when a pope is exercising his unfailing Faith to infallibly
teach from the Chair of St. Peter?  The answer is that we know from the language that
the pope uses or the manner in which the pope teaches.  Vatican I defined two
requirements which must be fulfilled: 1) when the pope is carrying out his duty as
pastor and teacher of all Christians in accord with his supreme apostolic authority; 2)
when he explains a doctrine on faith or morals to be held by the entire Church of Christ.   
A pope can fulfill both of these requirements in just one line, by anathematizing a false
opinion (such as many dogmatic councils) or by saying “By our apostolic authority we
declare...” or by saying “We believe, profess, and teach” or by using words of similar
importance and meaning, which indicate that the pope is teaching the whole Church on
Faith in a definitive and binding fashion.
 
     So, when a pope teaches from the Chair of Peter in the manner stipulated above he
cannot be wrong.  If he could be wrong, then the Church of Christ could be officially led
into error, and Christ’s promise to St. Peter and His Church would fail (which is
impossible).  That which is taught from the Chair of Peter by the popes of the Catholic
Church is the teaching of Jesus Christ Himself.  To reject that which is taught by the
popes from the Chair of Peter is simply to despise Jesus Christ Himself.   
 
Luke 10:16‐ “He that heareth you, heareth me: and he that despiseth you
despiseth me...” 
 
Matthew 18:17 ‐“And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the
heathen and publican.” 
 
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, 1896:
12
“... Christ instituted a living, authoritative and permanent Magisterium... If it
could in any way be false, an evident contradiction follows; for then God
Himself would be the author of error in man.”14
 
http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/2nd_edition_final.pdf

Then, why are you a sedevacantist?

If God were to be directing the Roman Catholic Church, why would He allow the papacy to fall vacant for almost 100 years? Since you quote so extensively from the Dimond brothers, do you think they possess some kind of infallibility? 
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: stanley123 on March 23, 2013, 06:01:42 PM

Then, why are you a sedevacantist?

If God were to be directing the Roman Catholic Church, why would He allow the papacy to fall vacant for almost 100 years? Since you quote so extensively from the Dimond brothers, do you think they possess some kind of infallibility? 
Good question. Both Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden say that Francis is the Pope. The Dimond brothers say Francis is not the Pope. Why should we believe the Dimond brothers over Nancy Pelosi?
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: J Michael on March 23, 2013, 07:41:44 PM
BTW, where does Pastor aeternus teach that the pope will be struck by lightening before being allowed to preach heresy?
Lightning did strike St. Peter's basilica shortly after Pope Benedict resigned.   ;D

(https://sites.google.com/site/thetaboriclight/metamorphosis/lightning_vatican.jpg)

Last I heard, it missed Pope Benedict, though.  ;D
Never question God's aim.

Never project onto God your own fantasies.  ;)
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: sedevacantist on March 23, 2013, 08:58:54 PM
Our Lord made St. Peter the first pope, entrusted to him His entire flock, and gave
him supreme authority in the universal Church of Christ.   
 
John 21:15‐17‐“Jesus saith to Simon Peter: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? 
He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee.  He saith to him: Feed
my lambs.  He saith to him again: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? He saith
to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee.  He saith to him: Feed my
lambs.  He saith to him a third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me?  Peter
was grieved, because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he
aid to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee.  He
said to him: Feed my sheep.”
 
     And with the supreme authority that Our Lord Jesus Christ conferred upon St. Peter
(and his successors, the popes) comes what is called Papal Infallibility.  Papal Infallibility
is inseparable from Papal Supremacy – there was no point for Christ to make St. Peter
the head of His Church (as Christ clearly did) if St. Peter or his successors, the popes,
could err when exercising that supreme authority to teach on a point of Faith.  The
supreme authority must be unfailing on binding matters of Faith and morals or else it is
no true authority from Christ at all.   
 
     Papal Infallibility does not mean that a pope cannot err at all and it does not mean
that a pope cannot lose his soul and be damned in Hell for grave sin.  It means that the
successors of St. Peter (the popes of the Catholic Church) cannot err when
authoritatively teaching on a point of Faith or morals to be held by the entire Church of
Christ.  We find the promise of the unfailing faith for St. Peter and his successors
referred to by Christ in Luke 22.
 
Luke 22:31‐32‐ “And the Lord said: Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to
have all of you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that
thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren.” 
 
     Satan desired to sift all the Apostles (plural) like wheat, but Jesus prayed for Simon
Peter (singular), that his faith fail not.  Jesus is saying that St. Peter and his successors
(the popes of the Catholic Church) have an unfailing faith when authoritatively teaching
a point of faith or morals to be held by the entire Church of Christ.   
 
Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, 1870, ex cathedra:
“SO, THIS GIFT OF TRUTH AND A NEVER FAILING FAITH WAS
DIVINELY CONFERRED UPON PETER AND HIS SUCCESSORS IN THIS
CHAIR...”10
 
 Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, 1870, ex cathedra:
“... the See of St. Peter always remains unimpaired by any error, according to
the divine promise of our Lord the Savior made to the chief of His disciples: ‘I
have prayed for thee [Peter], that thy faith fail not ...’”11 
 
And this truth has been held since the earliest times in the Catholic Church.     
 
Pope St. Gelasius I, epistle 42, or Decretal de recipiendis et non recipiendis libris, 495:
“Accordingly, the see of Peter the Apostle of the Church of Rome is first, having
neither spot, nor wrinkle, nor anything of this kind (Eph. 5:27).”12
 
11
     The word “infallible” actually means “cannot fail” or “unfailing.”  Therefore, the very
term Papal Infallibility comes directly from Christ’s promise to St. Peter (and his
successors) in Luke 22, that Peter has an unfailing Faith.  Though this truth was believed
since the beginning of the Church, it was specifically defined as a dogma at the First
Vatican Council in 1870.
 
Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, 1870, Session 4, Chap. 4:
“...the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra [from the Chair of Peter], that
is,  when  carrying  out  the  duty  of  the  pastor  and  teacher  of  all  Christians  in
accord  with  his  supreme  apostolic  authority  he  explains  a  doctrine  of  faith  or
morals to be held by the universal Church... operates with that infallibility with
which  the  divine  Redeemer  wished  that  His  Church  be  instructed  in  defining
doctrine  on  faith  and  morals;  and  so  such  definitions  of  the  Roman  Pontiff
from himself, but not from the consensus of the Church, are unalterable.”13
 
      But how does one know when a pope is exercising his unfailing Faith to infallibly
teach from the Chair of St. Peter?  The answer is that we know from the language that
the pope uses or the manner in which the pope teaches.  Vatican I defined two
requirements which must be fulfilled: 1) when the pope is carrying out his duty as
pastor and teacher of all Christians in accord with his supreme apostolic authority; 2)
when he explains a doctrine on faith or morals to be held by the entire Church of Christ.   
A pope can fulfill both of these requirements in just one line, by anathematizing a false
opinion (such as many dogmatic councils) or by saying “By our apostolic authority we
declare...” or by saying “We believe, profess, and teach” or by using words of similar
importance and meaning, which indicate that the pope is teaching the whole Church on
Faith in a definitive and binding fashion.
 
     So, when a pope teaches from the Chair of Peter in the manner stipulated above he
cannot be wrong.  If he could be wrong, then the Church of Christ could be officially led
into error, and Christ’s promise to St. Peter and His Church would fail (which is
impossible).  That which is taught from the Chair of Peter by the popes of the Catholic
Church is the teaching of Jesus Christ Himself.  To reject that which is taught by the
popes from the Chair of Peter is simply to despise Jesus Christ Himself.   
 
Luke 10:16‐ “He that heareth you, heareth me: and he that despiseth you
despiseth me...” 
 
Matthew 18:17 ‐“And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the
heathen and publican.” 
 
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, 1896:
12
“... Christ instituted a living, authoritative and permanent Magisterium... If it
could in any way be false, an evident contradiction follows; for then God
Himself would be the author of error in man.”14
 
http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/2nd_edition_final.pdf

Then, why are you a sedevacantist?

If God were to be directing the Roman Catholic Church, why would He allow the papacy to fall vacant for almost 100 years? Since you quote so extensively from the Dimond brothers, do you think they possess some kind of infallibility? 
why God would allow it to happen is debateable, what is not debateable is that it has happened, so why woul I follow a pope who's not catholic and in fact a heretic?
Pope Leo XIII’s longer
Prayer to St. Michael
also fits perfectly with Our Lady of La Salette’s famous appearance and prediction in 1846: “
Rome will lose the faith and become the Seat of the Antichrist
...
the Church will be in eclipse
.” Pope Leo’s words suggest that Antichrist himself, or at Pope Leo XIII’s prophecy about the future apostasy in Rome
least the forces of Antichrist, would set up their seat in Rome:
“In the Holy Place itself, where has been set up the See of the most holy Peter... they have raised the throne of their abominable impiety.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: sedevacantist on March 23, 2013, 09:07:05 PM

Then, why are you a sedevacantist?

If God were to be directing the Roman Catholic Church, why would He allow the papacy to fall vacant for almost 100 years? Since you quote so extensively from the Dimond brothers, do you think they possess some kind of infallibility? 
Good question. Both Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden say that Francis is the Pope. The Dimond brothers say Francis is not the Pope. Why should we believe the Dimond brothers over Nancy Pelosi?
please tell me you're joking about Pelosi being catholic, you shouldn't think Francis is not a pope because the Dimond brothers said so, Francis is not a true pope because he goes against the magisterium, against catholic teacing
example 1
http://www.israelunseen.com/new-pope-jorge-bergoglio-celebrated-hannukah-as-cardinal-of-buenos-aires/#.U
can you not  see by this simple example why he's not catholic?
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Pt. I-II, Q. 103., A. 4: “All ceremonies are professions of faith, in which the interior worship of God consists.  Now man can make profession of his inward faith, by deeds as well as by words: and in either profession, if he make a false declaration, he sins mortally.”

 

So, when John Paul II and now Benedict XVI (with high-ranking members of the Vatican II sect) attend the mosque, the Buddhist Temple, the Lutheran temple and the synagogue they are manifesting their apostasy by their deed.  They are manifesting by their deed that they accept these false religions, and that these people don’t need to become Catholic for salvation.  When Benedict XVI entered the synagogue and took active part in a Jewish worship service on August 19, 2005, he was manifesting his apostasy (his acceptance of the false Jewish religion) by his deed.  That is why St. Thomas Aquinas taught that if anyone were to worship at the tomb of Mohammed he would be an apostate.  Such an action alone would show that he does not have the Catholic Faith, and that he accepts the false Islamic religion.   

 

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Pt. II, Q. 12, A. 1, Obj. 2: “… if anyone were to… worship at the tomb of Mahomet, he would be deemed an apostate.”

 

Description: Catholic Saints

John Paul II kissing the Koran, May 14, 1999

 

John Paul II did the equivalent of worshipping at the tomb of Mahomet when he kissed the blasphemous Koran, when he praised Islam and its leaders countless times, and when he attended the mosque.  Just imagine what the Catholic saints would say about the Vatican II sect and John Paul II?  They would utterly denounce John Paul II and the Vatican II sect as completely apostate just for their teaching and actions with regard to the false religion of Islam:

 

St. Francis Xavier, May, 1546: “The evil [of Islam] was introduced by some Mahometan caicizes (ministers of religion), who came from Mecca in Arabia, where the accursed body of Mahomet is honored with great superstition.”

 

St. Francis of Assisi (+ c. 1210): [To the Muslims] “We have come to preach faith in Jesus Christ to you, that you will renounce Mohammad, that wicked slave of the devil, and obtain everlasting life like us.”

http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/VaticanII_mainpage.php
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: SolEX01 on March 23, 2013, 09:35:18 PM

Then, why are you a sedevacantist?

If God were to be directing the Roman Catholic Church, why would He allow the papacy to fall vacant for almost 100 years? Since you quote so extensively from the Dimond brothers, do you think they possess some kind of infallibility? 
Good question. Both Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden say that Francis is the Pope. The Dimond brothers say Francis is not the Pope. Why should we believe the Dimond brothers over Nancy Pelosi?
please tell me you're joking about Pelosi being catholic, you shouldn't think Francis is not a pope because the Dimond brothers said so, Francis is not a true pope because he goes against the magisterium, against catholic teacing

According to you, who is now the magisterium?  If you saw an apparition that said you were wrong about anything you posted on this board, how would you react?
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Maria on March 23, 2013, 09:39:22 PM
Quote from: sedevacantist
John Paul II did the equivalent of worshipping at the tomb of Mahomet when he kissed the blasphemous Koran, when he praised Islam and its leaders countless times, and when he attended the mosque.  Just imagine what the Catholic saints would say about the Vatican II sect and John Paul II?  They would utterly denounce John Paul II and the Vatican II sect as completely apostate just for their teaching and actions with regard to the false religion of Islam:

Pope Francis, as Archbishop of Buenos Aires, visited the mosque and synagogue.

I just do not get how Catholics can be sedevacantists and still believe in the Papacy.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: choy on March 23, 2013, 10:54:23 PM
Pope Francis, as Archbishop of Buenos Aires, visited the mosque and synagogue.

I just do not get how Catholics can be sedevacantists and still believe in the Papacy.

Sedevacantists are not Catholics.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: stanley123 on March 23, 2013, 10:59:52 PM

Then, why are you a sedevacantist?

If God were to be directing the Roman Catholic Church, why would He allow the papacy to fall vacant for almost 100 years? Since you quote so extensively from the Dimond brothers, do you think they possess some kind of infallibility? 
Good question. Both Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden say that Francis is the Pope. The Dimond brothers say Francis is not the Pope. Why should we believe the Dimond brothers over Nancy Pelosi?
please tell me you're joking about Pelosi being catholic, you shouldn't think Francis is not a pope because the Dimond brothers said so, Francis is not a true pope because he goes against the magisterium, against catholic teacing
example 1
http://www.israelunseen.com/new-pope-jorge-bergoglio-celebrated-hannukah-as-cardinal-of-buenos-aires/#.U
can you not  see by this simple example why he's not catholic?
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Pt. I-II, Q. 103., A. 4: “All ceremonies are professions of faith, in which the interior worship of God consists.  Now man can make profession of his inward faith, by deeds as well as by words: and in either profession, if he make a false declaration, he sins mortally.”

 

So, when John Paul II and now Benedict XVI (with high-ranking members of the Vatican II sect) attend the mosque, the Buddhist Temple, the Lutheran temple and the synagogue they are manifesting their apostasy by their deed.  They are manifesting by their deed that they accept these false religions, and that these people don’t need to become Catholic for salvation.  When Benedict XVI entered the synagogue and took active part in a Jewish worship service on August 19, 2005, he was manifesting his apostasy (his acceptance of the false Jewish religion) by his deed.  That is why St. Thomas Aquinas taught that if anyone were to worship at the tomb of Mohammed he would be an apostate.  Such an action alone would show that he does not have the Catholic Faith, and that he accepts the false Islamic religion.   

 

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Pt. II, Q. 12, A. 1, Obj. 2: “… if anyone were to… worship at the tomb of Mahomet, he would be deemed an apostate.”

 

Description: Catholic Saints

John Paul II kissing the Koran, May 14, 1999

 

John Paul II did the equivalent of worshipping at the tomb of Mahomet when he kissed the blasphemous Koran, when he praised Islam and its leaders countless times, and when he attended the mosque.  Just imagine what the Catholic saints would say about the Vatican II sect and John Paul II?  They would utterly denounce John Paul II and the Vatican II sect as completely apostate just for their teaching and actions with regard to the false religion of Islam:

 

St. Francis Xavier, May, 1546: “The evil [of Islam] was introduced by some Mahometan caicizes (ministers of religion), who came from Mecca in Arabia, where the accursed body of Mahomet is honored with great superstition.”

 

St. Francis of Assisi (+ c. 1210): [To the Muslims] “We have come to preach faith in Jesus Christ to you, that you will renounce Mohammad, that wicked slave of the devil, and obtain everlasting life like us.”

http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/VaticanII_mainpage.php
Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden do not believe that the Pope has apostasized. Why should I believe what the Dimond brothers say. After all, no one elected them to anything.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Maria on March 24, 2013, 12:27:23 AM
Well that's weird.  :o That would be like if St. Peter, or St. Paul, or St. James or somebody, wrote an infallible book of the bible!

Yes, of course St. Peter is so infallible that he never needed to be corrected by someone like St. Paul  ::) ::) ::)

Indeed, that is why the Orthodox Christian Church is conciliar, and not a monarchy with an infallible pope as at the Vatican.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Maria on March 24, 2013, 12:50:51 AM
Have you ever studied the history of the Code of Canon Law of the Catholic Church?  

Just after the declaration of Papal Supremacy and Papal Infallibility in 1870, canon lawyers at the Vatican started revising the ancient canons to make them comply with the new doctrines concerning the Papacy. The first Code of Canon Law of the Catholic Church was published around 1913 just before WWI.  One of the first canons to be revised dealt with how a bishop was to be elected. Since the Pope was now supreme, the canon lawyers changed the election and confirmation of a bishop.

In the canon laws established by the Seven Ecumenical Councils, all of which have anathemas attached if they should be changed, it details that when a diocese is vacant due to the death or resignation of a bishop, then the clergy (with laity present) are to meet and select three candidates. Then the senior priest is to appeal to the nearest bishops to seek their approval of one of the three candidates. When three bishops have chosen one candidate (or more), the candidate will be led into the church and consecrated a bishop by those three bishops. Only after the consecration, will the other churches and hierarchs be notified, including the Bishop of Rome. So, until 1913, the Pope of Rome did not have to approve any candidates for the bishopric.

This centralized control at the Vatican took away local control from the laity and the clergy. In addition, with the establishment of this papal monarchy, local government officials were deprived of their choice of candidates for the bishopric.

This change in canon law and the enforcement of it actually helped bring on World War I.

Again, I cannot remember where I read this, but back in 1993 many people in the Melkite Catholic Church were studying these canons when the Newton Diocese in the Melkite Church was vacant. We wanted a return to the ancient canons, but the Vatican made us wait almost three years before we had a new bishop installed. Those were hard times. Finally, there was a bishop who came from the Vatican to interview the laity in our parish, I was one who was selected for an interview. The bishop explained to me that with the doctrine of Papal Supremacy, the election of bishops had definitely changed, and that we had to be patient as the Holy Father would duly select the right candidate.

I do not like centralized control.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: sedevacantist on March 24, 2013, 11:12:24 AM

Then, why are you a sedevacantist?

If God were to be directing the Roman Catholic Church, why would He allow the papacy to fall vacant for almost 100 years? Since you quote so extensively from the Dimond brothers, do you think they possess some kind of infallibility? 
Good question. Both Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden say that Francis is the Pope. The Dimond brothers say Francis is not the Pope. Why should we believe the Dimond brothers over Nancy Pelosi?
please tell me you're joking about Pelosi being catholic, you shouldn't think Francis is not a pope because the Dimond brothers said so, Francis is not a true pope because he goes against the magisterium, against catholic teacing

According to you, who is now the magisterium?  If you saw an apparition that said you were wrong about anything you posted on this board, how would you react?
it's already happened
The False Apparitions at Bayside, NY
The False Apparitions at Medjugorje
 Any apparition which favors Vatican II or the Vatican II antipopes is proven by that fact to contradict Catholic teaching.  It therefore cannot be from God.
Magisterium
– the teaching authority of the Catholic Church, exercised by a pope when proclaiming a dogma with the authority of the Pa
pacy. Not every pronouncement of a true pope is a teaching of the Magisterium. A pope speaks magisterially when he
meets certain conditions (as defined by Vatican I). Those who are faithful to the Magisterium are those who are faithful to
what all the popes throughout history have dogmatically taught or set forth as what the Catholic Church has always held
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: sedevacantist on March 24, 2013, 11:15:08 AM
Quote from: sedevacantist
John Paul II did the equivalent of worshipping at the tomb of Mahomet when he kissed the blasphemous Koran, when he praised Islam and its leaders countless times, and when he attended the mosque.  Just imagine what the Catholic saints would say about the Vatican II sect and John Paul II?  They would utterly denounce John Paul II and the Vatican II sect as completely apostate just for their teaching and actions with regard to the false religion of Islam:

Pope Francis, as Archbishop of Buenos Aires, visited the mosque and synagogue.

I just do not get how Catholics can be sedevacantists and still believe in the Papacy.
you are confusing 2 issues, the papacy which is biblical, and the fact that sedevacantists believe the chair of Peter is empty because the fact of the matte is the pope is  a heretic, is not catholic and shouldn't be followed, why is this so confusing?
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: sedevacantist on March 24, 2013, 11:16:54 AM
Pope Francis, as Archbishop of Buenos Aires, visited the mosque and synagogue.

I just do not get how Catholics can be sedevacantists and still believe in the Papacy.

Sedevacantists are not Catholics.
I have shown by answering all your questions on the other topic that my answers can not be refuted and that you don't know what you are talking about.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: sedevacantist on March 24, 2013, 11:19:47 AM

Then, why are you a sedevacantist?

If God were to be directing the Roman Catholic Church, why would He allow the papacy to fall vacant for almost 100 years? Since you quote so extensively from the Dimond brothers, do you think they possess some kind of infallibility? 
Good question. Both Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden say that Francis is the Pope. The Dimond brothers say Francis is not the Pope. Why should we believe the Dimond brothers over Nancy Pelosi?
please tell me you're joking about Pelosi being catholic, you shouldn't think Francis is not a pope because the Dimond brothers said so, Francis is not a true pope because he goes against the magisterium, against catholic teacing
example 1
http://www.israelunseen.com/new-pope-jorge-bergoglio-celebrated-hannukah-as-cardinal-of-buenos-aires/#.U
can you not  see by this simple example why he's not catholic?
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Pt. I-II, Q. 103., A. 4: “All ceremonies are professions of faith, in which the interior worship of God consists.  Now man can make profession of his inward faith, by deeds as well as by words: and in either profession, if he make a false declaration, he sins mortally.”

 

So, when John Paul II and now Benedict XVI (with high-ranking members of the Vatican II sect) attend the mosque, the Buddhist Temple, the Lutheran temple and the synagogue they are manifesting their apostasy by their deed.  They are manifesting by their deed that they accept these false religions, and that these people don’t need to become Catholic for salvation.  When Benedict XVI entered the synagogue and took active part in a Jewish worship service on August 19, 2005, he was manifesting his apostasy (his acceptance of the false Jewish religion) by his deed.  That is why St. Thomas Aquinas taught that if anyone were to worship at the tomb of Mohammed he would be an apostate.  Such an action alone would show that he does not have the Catholic Faith, and that he accepts the false Islamic religion.   

 

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Pt. II, Q. 12, A. 1, Obj. 2: “… if anyone were to… worship at the tomb of Mahomet, he would be deemed an apostate.”

 

Description: Catholic Saints

John Paul II kissing the Koran, May 14, 1999

 

John Paul II did the equivalent of worshipping at the tomb of Mahomet when he kissed the blasphemous Koran, when he praised Islam and its leaders countless times, and when he attended the mosque.  Just imagine what the Catholic saints would say about the Vatican II sect and John Paul II?  They would utterly denounce John Paul II and the Vatican II sect as completely apostate just for their teaching and actions with regard to the false religion of Islam:

 

St. Francis Xavier, May, 1546: “The evil [of Islam] was introduced by some Mahometan caicizes (ministers of religion), who came from Mecca in Arabia, where the accursed body of Mahomet is honored with great superstition.”

 

St. Francis of Assisi (+ c. 1210): [To the Muslims] “We have come to preach faith in Jesus Christ to you, that you will renounce Mohammad, that wicked slave of the devil, and obtain everlasting life like us.”

http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/VaticanII_mainpage.php
Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden do not believe that the Pope has apostasized. Why should I believe what the Dimond brothers say. After all, no one elected them to anything.
how come you can't answer my question concerning the pope, why do you care what Nancy Pelosi thinks, do you know anything about her? do you know about the new world order? you should believe what the Dimonds say based on the facts they present or prove them wrong
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Cyrillic on March 24, 2013, 11:20:24 AM
The False Apparitions at Bayside, NY
The False Apparitions at Medjugorje

Protip: the other apparitions are all false too.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: minasoliman on March 24, 2013, 12:57:32 PM
Dear Melesine,

I want you to look at the bright side in all of this.  You've come quite far.  You have limited your choices between the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church.  This means what is common between the two, which is a lot and I believe essential, you already believe and are convinced.  That is something to be thankful for, and to encourage you in continued praying.

I wish you God's blessings in your spiritual journey.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Maria on March 24, 2013, 03:02:20 PM

Please tell me that, as a sedevecantist, Br. Dimond does not have an agenda?  Sorry, but one look at the homepage of the "monastery", was a complete and utter turnoff.  So, yeah, I'm biased.  ;)


Oh, of course, Br. Dimond has an agenda, but we can agree that he is a little misguided and needs our prayers.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: PeterTheAleut on March 24, 2013, 05:19:52 PM
Pope Francis, as Archbishop of Buenos Aires, visited the mosque and synagogue.

I just do not get how Catholics can be sedevacantists and still believe in the Papacy.

Sedevacantists are not Catholics.
I have shown by answering all your questions on the other topic that my answers can not be refuted...
"You cannot prove me wrong; therefore, I must be right." Sorry, buddy. That's not how debate works.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: mike on March 24, 2013, 05:34:01 PM
Today, although Catholic priests of a vacant diocese may choose three candidates, the Pope has the final say as to which one is elected.

Pope can ordain the 4th candidate, not included in that list.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Maria on March 24, 2013, 05:36:58 PM
Today, although Catholic priests of a vacant diocese may choose three candidates, the Pope has the final say as to which one is elected.

Pope can ordain the 4th candidate, not included in that list.

Not what I was told by the Bishop of Newton, nor by the bishop sent by Rome to investigate candidates back in 1994.
A diocese only submits three names at a time, if none of the three are acceptable, then they must submit a new list, and on and on. That is why this new crazy process takes so long.

However, I have not read the new REVISED CODE OF CANON LAW. And it has been revised TWICE since its maiden publication in 1917. Perhaps they revised the election code. I do not know, and frankly I do not care what the ungodly Vatican has done. Nevertheless, I am certainly praying for Catholics. 
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: sedevacantist on March 24, 2013, 06:08:59 PM
The False Apparitions at Bayside, NY
The False Apparitions at Medjugorje

Protip: the other apparitions are all false too.
sorry Fatima is not false, I suggest you look into the subject in depth
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Peter J on March 24, 2013, 06:09:24 PM
There is no love of the Code of Canon Law in the Melkite Church

... which, of course, you aren't a part of.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: sedevacantist on March 24, 2013, 06:11:36 PM

There is no love of the Code of Canon Law in the Melkite Church.
I know many Eastern Catholic priests and even bishops who detest it as it has changed the wording of Sacred Canons.
Okay, so they do. I don't purport to know anything about this code of canon law nor about the Melkite and Eastern Catholic hatred for it, so I'm not going to comment on any of that. I just think you should either submit much stronger proof of your claim that this code of canon law helped trigger World War I or disavow your claim as the piece of garbage history it is.

If you had read the book, Hitler's Pope: The Secret History of Pius XII, with an open mind, you would see the connection. But I guess that is too much to ask.

I cannot quote major portions of Cornwell's book without incurring copyright violations, and I will not waste my time babying people who refuse to read and learn history.

I'll admit that I haven't read Cornwell's book.  I also haven't read this one:
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51H0GS01CML._SL500_SS500_.jpg)
http://www.amazon.com/Myth-Hitlers-Pope-Against-Germany/dp/0895260344/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1364139374&sr=1-1&keywords=the+myth+of+hitler%27s+pope

Have you?

Yes, I read excerpts. I was not impressed.

Cornwell does not claim that Pope Pius XII did not rescue Jews. (Please excuse the double negative.) It was well known that this Pope did help Jews who managed to escape into Vatican City.

When Cornwell started to write his book, he did so to affirm P. Pius XII who was being investigated by the Vatican as a possible saint. However, when he really started to search deep into the Vatican archives, then he uncovered a lot of information that pointed the other way and showed that P. Pius XII was very political and not so saintly, but was apparently deluted and filled with prelest. After writing this book, Cornwell's Catholic faith was shaken to the core. In 1999, when Cornwell's book was published, our family had already embraced Orthodoxy, so the book just confirmed that our family had made the correct decision.

An interesting tidbit: When I read Cornwell's book, I corresponded with Brother Dimond and suggested that he read it too. At first, he rejected that idea. So, I encouraged him to read the encyclicals of P. Pius XII, especially M. Corporus, where this pope not only called for liturgical abuse to stop, but also called for the establishment of Diocesan Liturgical Commissions throughout the world.

These same Liturgical Commissions established by P. Pius XII began to clammer for another council, Vatican II, and with primary support of Jesuits these commissions encouraged the revision of the Mass. I attended some Jesuit retreats for school children back before Vatican II, where the Jesuits had already begun to experiment with the Mass. After Vatican II, the Jesuits would often stage agape meals in place of the Mass using Irish Soda bread complete with raisins and caraway seeds as the "bread" for the Mass. Finally, the real liturgical abuse began with clown, beer, and bikini masses. I witnessed it all in Northern and Southern California. The Jesuits told me that these liturgical experiments were occurring in North America, France, England, and in South America. Finally, a good priest brought me to my senses when I realized that such masses were destroying my faith. I left the Novus Ordo jungle, became a Melkite Eastern Catholic, and then finally crossed the bridge over into Orthodoxy.

Back in the early 2000s, I also encouraged Br. Dimond to read the 1917 Code of Canon Law and the revisions done in the early 1990s and again in the early 2000s. Shortly thereafter, Br. Dimond changed his story and started addressing both P. Pius XII and P. Pius XI as Anti-Popes. His list of Anti-Popes seems to get longer with every year that passes. Soon, I think Br. Dimond might go so far as to become an Old Roman Catholic or embrace Orthodoxy when Papal supremacy and Papal infallibility no longer have any validity for him.

Let us pray for Br. Dimond and his Holy Family Monastery that they may be saved.
I will pray for you that 1 day you will see the light, you are outside the church , Pope Pius X11 isn't an anti pope, show me where he wrote this, and there's no chance he would embrace orthodoxy or any old catholic religion
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: mike on March 24, 2013, 06:12:16 PM
There is no love of the Code of Canon Law in the Melkite Church

... which, of course, you aren't a part of.

Why should they care about it? They follow the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches instead.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: sedevacantist on March 24, 2013, 06:15:32 PM
Pope Francis, as Archbishop of Buenos Aires, visited the mosque and synagogue.

I just do not get how Catholics can be sedevacantists and still believe in the Papacy.

Sedevacantists are not Catholics.
I have shown by answering all your questions on the other topic that my answers can not be refuted...
"You cannot prove me wrong; therefore, I must be right." Sorry, buddy. That's not how debate works.
so making a wild accusation that I'm not  catholic based on nothing is how a debate works? I already disproved everything he wrote on the other thread with facts, that's how a debate works , sorry buddy.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Peter J on March 24, 2013, 06:49:39 PM
Have we collectively succeeded in running off the original poster?

Well, that's possible.

Speaking for myself, I became interested in reading this thread (which was already very long when I found it) because of what Melesine said; but in reading it, I found it had so many crazy twists that I decided to respond to them, rather than Melesine, in my initial posts.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Peter J on March 24, 2013, 06:51:27 PM
so making a wild accusation that I'm not  catholic
...

I take it that you want people to describe you as "not in communion with Rome" rather than "not Catholic"?
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: mike on March 24, 2013, 06:55:23 PM
so making a wild accusation that I'm not  catholic
...

I take it that you want people to describe you as "not in communion with Rome" rather than "not Catholic"?

We only need ialmisry now and the "debate" - I am Catholic - You are not. I'm Catholic - You are not. I'm Catholic... can get started...
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: J Michael on March 24, 2013, 07:00:39 PM
so making a wild accusation that I'm not  catholic
...

I take it that you want people to describe you as "not in communion with Rome" rather than "not Catholic"?

We only need ialmisry now and the "debate" - I am Catholic - You are not. I'm Catholic - You are not. I'm Catholic... can get started...

LOL!  And maps.  This thread is in dire need of huge maps.  Lots of them.  They always definitely prove something.  Infallibly so, too.  ;D ;D

(Sorry, Isa, it's hard impossible to resist  :angel:.)
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: choy on March 24, 2013, 07:27:44 PM
so making a wild accusation that I'm not  catholic based on nothing is how a debate works? I already disproved everything he wrote on the other thread with facts, that's how a debate works , sorry buddy.

It is not wild, its fact.  You refuse to submit yourselves to the supreme infallible Roman Pontiff, therefore you are not Catholic. You have no authority to declare the Pope as a heretic because the Popes all the way from the 1100s have declared themselves to be above judgement of any mortal.  Only God can judge them.  Of course we Orthodox do not believe that, but we also do not claim to be Roman Catholics, so no problems there.  As a Roman Catholic, you must believe that, and if you believe that then you have to accept the current Pope.  To declare the Pope heretic is to deny a 900 year old teaching of the Roman Catholic Church (you only reject Vatican II so you cannot reject this teaching) that the Pope is above judgement by any mere human being.  And if you deny that teaching, you are not Roman Catholic.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: PeterTheAleut on March 24, 2013, 07:41:18 PM
so making a wild accusation that I'm not  catholic based on nothing is how a debate works? I already disproved everything he wrote on the other thread with facts, that's how a debate works , sorry buddy.

It is not wild, its fact.  You refuse to submit yourselves to the supreme infallible Roman Pontiff, therefore you are not Catholic. You have no authority to declare the Pope as a heretic because the Popes all the way from the 1100s have declared themselves to be above judgement of any mortal.  Only God can judge them.  Of course we Orthodox do not believe that, but we also do not claim to be Roman Catholics, so no problems there.  As a Roman Catholic, you must believe that, and if you believe that then you have to accept the current Pope.  To declare the Pope heretic is to deny a 900 year old teaching of the Roman Catholic Church (you only reject Vatican II so you cannot reject this teaching) that the Pope is above judgement by any mere human being.  And if you deny that teaching, you are not Roman Catholic.
Why are we Orthodox arguing on an Orthodox discussion board that some sedevacantist is not Roman Catholic? Does it even matter to us what side someone takes in what is essentially a squabble internal to the Roman Catholic Church? If Isa is to be believed, Roman Catholics, to include the sedevacantists, are neither Roman nor Catholic, and they're certainly not Orthodox.

We Orthodox are not parties to the internal squabbles Roman Catholics might have among themselves, so let's let them fight out their own squabbles (where and how appropriate on this forum) without us stepping in to take one side or the other.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Peter J on March 24, 2013, 07:55:03 PM
so making a wild accusation that I'm not  catholic based on nothing is how a debate works? I already disproved everything he wrote on the other thread with facts, that's how a debate works , sorry buddy.

It is not wild, its fact.  You refuse to submit yourselves to the supreme infallible Roman Pontiff, therefore you are not Catholic. You have no authority to declare the Pope as a heretic because the Popes all the way from the 1100s have declared themselves to be above judgement of any mortal.  Only God can judge them.  Of course we Orthodox do not believe that, but we also do not claim to be Roman Catholics, so no problems there.  As a Roman Catholic, you must believe that, and if you believe that then you have to accept the current Pope.  To declare the Pope heretic is to deny a 900 year old teaching of the Roman Catholic Church (you only reject Vatican II so you cannot reject this teaching) that the Pope is above judgement by any mere human being.  And if you deny that teaching, you are not Roman Catholic.
Why are we Orthodox arguing on an Orthodox discussion board that some sedevacantist is not Roman Catholic?

Well, when you think about it, you Orthodox are really sedevacantists yourselves -- albeit a less crazy kind of sedevacantist (in my opinion).  :)
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: PeterTheAleut on March 24, 2013, 08:01:33 PM
so making a wild accusation that I'm not  catholic based on nothing is how a debate works? I already disproved everything he wrote on the other thread with facts, that's how a debate works , sorry buddy.

It is not wild, its fact.  You refuse to submit yourselves to the supreme infallible Roman Pontiff, therefore you are not Catholic. You have no authority to declare the Pope as a heretic because the Popes all the way from the 1100s have declared themselves to be above judgement of any mortal.  Only God can judge them.  Of course we Orthodox do not believe that, but we also do not claim to be Roman Catholics, so no problems there.  As a Roman Catholic, you must believe that, and if you believe that then you have to accept the current Pope.  To declare the Pope heretic is to deny a 900 year old teaching of the Roman Catholic Church (you only reject Vatican II so you cannot reject this teaching) that the Pope is above judgement by any mere human being.  And if you deny that teaching, you are not Roman Catholic.
Why are we Orthodox arguing on an Orthodox discussion board that some sedevacantist is not Roman Catholic?

Well, when you think about it, you Orthodox are really sedevacantists yourselves -- albeit a less crazy kind of sedevacantist (in my opinion).  :)
I'm certainly not against you thinking us sedevacantists. Unlike the sedevacantists that arose as a reaction to Vatican II, we believe the Pope vacated the Roman See by falling into heresy in 1054. ;)
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Asteriktos on March 24, 2013, 08:11:50 PM
we believe the Pope vacated the Roman See by falling into heresy in 1054. ;)

What heresy did they fall into in 1054?  :o
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Peter J on March 24, 2013, 08:38:21 PM
we believe the Pope vacated the Roman See by falling into heresy in 1054. ;)

What heresy did they fall into in 1054?  :o

Dating the schism from the 11th, rather than 15th, century doesn't make sense to me, but it is conventional.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Asteriktos on March 24, 2013, 08:45:36 PM
we believe the Pope vacated the Roman See by falling into heresy in 1054. ;)

What heresy did they fall into in 1054?  :o

Dating the schism from the 11th, rather than 15th, century doesn't make sense to me, but it is conventional.

But he didn't say a schism happened in 1054. He said: "the Pope vacated the Roman See by falling into heresy in 1054"...  8)
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: choy on March 24, 2013, 09:23:02 PM
Why are we Orthodox arguing on an Orthodox discussion board that some sedevacantist is not Roman Catholic? Does it even matter to us what side someone takes in what is essentially a squabble internal to the Roman Catholic Church? If Isa is to be believed, Roman Catholics, to include the sedevacantists, are neither Roman nor Catholic, and they're certainly not Orthodox.

We Orthodox are not parties to the internal squabbles Roman Catholics might have among themselves, so let's let them fight out their own squabbles (where and how appropriate on this forum) without us stepping in to take one side or the other.

For those of us who has 33 years of Roman Catholic catechism in our heads, we just don't want to put such information to waste  ;D
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: orthros on March 24, 2013, 09:53:21 PM
The False Apparitions at Bayside, NY
The False Apparitions at Medjugorje

Protip: the other apparitions are all false too.
sorry Fatima is not false, I suggest you look into the subject in depth

Whether Fatima is true or not, it's irrelevant to your position since private revelation is always optional, a point I'm presuming you affirm.  If not, let us know so we can move on as you're then openly espousing heresy.

On a different topic, I still haven't had a sedevacantist explain the authority issue well to me.  As in, how do you have the authority, as laymen, to declare a Pope's election invalid?

You can make a case that John XXIII is an antipope.  I've heard others claim Paul VI was the first antipope, as well as Pius XII and as far back as Pope Leo XIII (reign ended 1903).  Google for lots of examples of all of these; it's the slippery slope of layman judging those in ecclesial authority. 

So how do you manage to make this judgment without falling into the same essential trap as Lutheranism?
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: stanley123 on March 24, 2013, 10:19:09 PM
... how do you have the authority, as laymen, to declare a Pope's election invalid?
Good question for sedevacantist.
Here's another. Out of 1.2 billion Catholics, how many say that Francis is not the Pope?
And another: Among all Catholic bishops today, can you give me one who is not a heretic?
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: choy on March 24, 2013, 10:34:08 PM
Here's another. Out of 1.2 billion Catholics, how many say that Francis is not the Pope?

Careful here, the Roman Catholic Church isn't a democracy.  If you're going by this, you'll lose the contraceptive and divorce debate.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Maria on March 24, 2013, 10:36:15 PM
Here's another. Out of 1.2 billion Catholics, how many say that Francis is not the Pope?

Careful here, the Roman Catholic Church isn't a democracy.  If you're going by this, you'll love the contraceptive and divorce debate.

Exactly. Go to any Catholic board, and you will see that the infallibility stamp on the Papacy has not stopped debate on abortion, contraceptive, and women as priests.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: choy on March 24, 2013, 10:51:30 PM
Sorry, I meant one will LOSE the debate.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: choy on March 24, 2013, 10:53:33 PM
Here's another. Out of 1.2 billion Catholics, how many say that Francis is not the Pope?

Careful here, the Roman Catholic Church isn't a democracy.  If you're going by this, you'll love the contraceptive and divorce debate.

Exactly. Go to any Catholic board, and you will see that the infallibility stamp on the Papacy has not stopped debate on abortion, contraceptive, and women as priests.

It's really hard to win a debate against women's ordination if they keep coming up with catchy tunes such as this one... http://youtu.be/Y0S2WlvNTU8

 ;D :D ;D :D
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Blachernae Al Romaani on March 24, 2013, 11:03:06 PM
we believe the Pope vacated the Roman See by falling into heresy in 1054. ;)

What heresy did they fall into in 1054?  :o

Dating the schism from the 11th, rather than 15th, century doesn't make sense to me, but it is conventional.

Well if Papal Infaillability makes sense to you, you are not a reliable criteria for what makes sense or not.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: PeterTheAleut on March 24, 2013, 11:10:49 PM
we believe the Pope vacated the Roman See by falling into heresy in 1054. ;)

What heresy did they fall into in 1054?  :o

Dating the schism from the 11th, rather than 15th, century doesn't make sense to me, but it is conventional.
I do understand that the issue of the schism between East and West is a lot more nuanced than I just made it out to be, but 1054 is a convenient year for the basest of polemics. ;)
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: PeterTheAleut on March 24, 2013, 11:29:56 PM
As a service to username!, I split off and moved the tangent on the 1913 change in canon law and World War I to here: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=50698.0 (http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=50698.0)

-PtA
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: username! on March 24, 2013, 11:35:18 PM
thank you
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: sedevacantist on March 24, 2013, 11:44:10 PM
The False Apparitions at Bayside, NY
The False Apparitions at Medjugorje

Protip: the other apparitions are all false too.
sorry Fatima is not false, I suggest you look into the subject in depth

Whether Fatima is true or not, it's irrelevant to your position since private revelation is always optional, a point I'm presuming you affirm.  If not, let us know so we can move on as you're then openly espousing heresy.

On a different topic, I still haven't had a sedevacantist explain the authority issue well to me.  As in, how do you have the authority, as laymen, to declare a Pope's election invalid?

You can make a case that John XXIII is an antipope.  I've heard others claim Paul VI was the first antipope, as well as Pius XII and as far back as Pope Leo XIII (reign ended 1903).  Google for lots of examples of all of these; it's the slippery slope of layman judging those in ecclesial authority. 

So how do you manage to make this judgment without falling into the same essential trap as Lutheranism?
I will repeat what I wrote on the other thread
The Catholic Encyclopedia
, “Heresy,” 1914, Vol. 7, p. 261: “
The pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church.”
St. Robert Bellarmine, Cardinal and Doctor of the Church,
De Romano Pontifice
, II, 30:
"A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to be pope and head
, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church.
This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction."
St. Francis De Sales (17th century), Doctor of the Church,
The Catholic Controversy , pp.305-306: "Now when he [the Pope] is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church.
So the easiest way as I see it to prove a pope is not a catholic is when he goes against the magisterium, for example can people of false religions be saved...
Pope Eugene IV,
Council of Florence
, “Cantate Domino,” 1441:
“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans
but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for
the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives...”
so vatican 2 is clearly not catholic to anyone who is of good will and knows how to read, we have John 23 who was a freemason, we have post vatican 2 popes praying in synagogues, just like this Francis chap, so I ask all catholics how can you in good faith be in communion with Rome and consider yourself Catholic? do you not realize there has been an infiltration of paedophiles? why is this so hard to see?
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Cyrillic on March 25, 2013, 04:25:20 AM
The Catholic Encyclopedia
, “Heresy,” 1914, Vol. 7, p. 261: “
The pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church.”
St. Robert Bellarmine, Cardinal and Doctor of the Church,


And that's why the Orthodox Church hasn't had a Roman Pope since 1054...
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: mike on March 25, 2013, 11:08:53 AM
It is not wild, its fact.  You refuse to submit yourselves to the supreme infallible Roman Pontiff, therefore you are not Catholic. You have no authority to declare the Pope as a heretic because the Popes all the way from the 1100s have declared themselves to be above judgement of any mortal.  Only God can judge them.  Of course we Orthodox do not believe that, but we also do not claim to be Roman Catholics, so no problems there.  As a Roman Catholic, you must believe that, and if you believe that then you have to accept the current Pope.  To declare the Pope heretic is to deny a 900 year old teaching of the Roman Catholic Church (you only reject Vatican II so you cannot reject this teaching) that the Pope is above judgement by any mere human being.  And if you deny that teaching, you are not Roman Catholic.

For those of us who has 33 years of Roman Catholic catechism in our heads, we just don't want to put such information to waste  ;D

I'm trying to fnd some consistency in your posts. But I fail.

First you, using the phrase "we Orthodox" (could you remind me when were you received into the Church? I missed that) infallibly proclaim what "we Orthodox" believe or not believe. Then you defend the Roman Catholic Church from some other Roman Catholics who do not agree with it.

Can you decide what are you? Catholic? Orthodox? Orthodox catechuman? What do you believe?
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: sheenj on March 25, 2013, 11:43:56 AM
It is not wild, its fact.  You refuse to submit yourselves to the supreme infallible Roman Pontiff, therefore you are not Catholic. You have no authority to declare the Pope as a heretic because the Popes all the way from the 1100s have declared themselves to be above judgement of any mortal.  Only God can judge them.  Of course we Orthodox do not believe that, but we also do not claim to be Roman Catholics, so no problems there.  As a Roman Catholic, you must believe that, and if you believe that then you have to accept the current Pope.  To declare the Pope heretic is to deny a 900 year old teaching of the Roman Catholic Church (you only reject Vatican II so you cannot reject this teaching) that the Pope is above judgement by any mere human being.  And if you deny that teaching, you are not Roman Catholic.

For those of us who has 33 years of Roman Catholic catechism in our heads, we just don't want to put such information to waste  ;D

I'm trying to fnd some consistency in your posts. But I fail.

First you, using the phrase "we Orthodox" (could you remind me when were you received into the Church? I missed that) infallibly proclaim what "we Orthodox" believe or not believe. Then you defend the Roman Catholic Church from some other Roman Catholics who do not agree with it.

Can you decide what are you? Catholic? Orthodox? Orthodox catechuman? What do you believe?

I for one think Choy has consistently put forth these views not as his own, but as what he has been taught in the Orthodox and Catholic Catechism classes respectively.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: PeterTheAleut on March 25, 2013, 11:50:05 AM
It is not wild, its fact.  You refuse to submit yourselves to the supreme infallible Roman Pontiff, therefore you are not Catholic. You have no authority to declare the Pope as a heretic because the Popes all the way from the 1100s have declared themselves to be above judgement of any mortal.  Only God can judge them.  Of course we Orthodox do not believe that, but we also do not claim to be Roman Catholics, so no problems there.  As a Roman Catholic, you must believe that, and if you believe that then you have to accept the current Pope.  To declare the Pope heretic is to deny a 900 year old teaching of the Roman Catholic Church (you only reject Vatican II so you cannot reject this teaching) that the Pope is above judgement by any mere human being.  And if you deny that teaching, you are not Roman Catholic.

For those of us who has 33 years of Roman Catholic catechism in our heads, we just don't want to put such information to waste  ;D

I'm trying to fnd some consistency in your posts. But I fail.

First you, using the phrase "we Orthodox" (could you remind me when were you received into the Church? I missed that) infallibly proclaim what "we Orthodox" believe or not believe. Then you defend the Roman Catholic Church from some other Roman Catholics who do not agree with it.

Can you decide what are you? Catholic? Orthodox? Orthodox catechuman? What do you believe?

I for one think Choy has consistently put forth these views not as his own, but as what he has been taught in the Orthodox and Catholic Catechism classes respectively.
I don't think that's what Mike is addressing. If choy is really an Orthodox catechumen as he says he is, then why does he continue to insert himself into arguments internal to the Roman Catholic Church that he left? Such internecine RC squabbles should no longer be his concern, since he left them behind.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Papist on March 25, 2013, 12:02:49 PM
I will pray for you that 1 day you will see the light, you are outside the church , Pope Pius X11 isn't an anti pope, show me where he wrote this, and there's no chance he would embrace orthodoxy or any old catholic religion
Aren't there some sede groups who think that he was an anti-Pope?
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Papist on March 25, 2013, 12:02:49 PM
It is not wild, its fact.  You refuse to submit yourselves to the supreme infallible Roman Pontiff, therefore you are not Catholic. You have no authority to declare the Pope as a heretic because the Popes all the way from the 1100s have declared themselves to be above judgement of any mortal.  Only God can judge them.  Of course we Orthodox do not believe that, but we also do not claim to be Roman Catholics, so no problems there.  As a Roman Catholic, you must believe that, and if you believe that then you have to accept the current Pope.  To declare the Pope heretic is to deny a 900 year old teaching of the Roman Catholic Church (you only reject Vatican II so you cannot reject this teaching) that the Pope is above judgement by any mere human being.  And if you deny that teaching, you are not Roman Catholic.

For those of us who has 33 years of Roman Catholic catechism in our heads, we just don't want to put such information to waste  ;D

I'm trying to fnd some consistency in your posts. But I fail.

First you, using the phrase "we Orthodox" (could you remind me when were you received into the Church? I missed that) infallibly proclaim what "we Orthodox" believe or not believe. Then you defend the Roman Catholic Church from some other Roman Catholics who do not agree with it.

Can you decide what are you? Catholic? Orthodox? Orthodox catechuman? What do you believe?

I for one think Choy has consistently put forth these views not as his own, but as what he has been taught in the Orthodox and Catholic Catechism classes respectively.
I don't think that's what Mike is addressing. If choy is really an Orthodox catechumen as he says he is, then why does he continue to insert himself into arguments internal to the Roman Catholic Church that he left? Such internecine RC squabbles should no longer be his concern, since he left them behind.
While I think Choy is just a great guy, you know very well that ex-Catholics can't help themselves.  :D
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Maria on March 25, 2013, 12:11:01 PM
It is not wild, its fact.  You refuse to submit yourselves to the supreme infallible Roman Pontiff, therefore you are not Catholic. You have no authority to declare the Pope as a heretic because the Popes all the way from the 1100s have declared themselves to be above judgement of any mortal.  Only God can judge them.  Of course we Orthodox do not believe that, but we also do not claim to be Roman Catholics, so no problems there.  As a Roman Catholic, you must believe that, and if you believe that then you have to accept the current Pope.  To declare the Pope heretic is to deny a 900 year old teaching of the Roman Catholic Church (you only reject Vatican II so you cannot reject this teaching) that the Pope is above judgement by any mere human being.  And if you deny that teaching, you are not Roman Catholic.

For those of us who has 33 years of Roman Catholic catechism in our heads, we just don't want to put such information to waste  ;D

I'm trying to fnd some consistency in your posts. But I fail.

First you, using the phrase "we Orthodox" (could you remind me when were you received into the Church? I missed that) infallibly proclaim what "we Orthodox" believe or not believe. Then you defend the Roman Catholic Church from some other Roman Catholics who do not agree with it.

Can you decide what are you? Catholic? Orthodox? Orthodox catechuman? What do you believe?

Choy is no longer Catholic, but is not yet Orthodox.
Since he is an Orthodox catechumen, he is part of us.
Let us pray for him. 
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: mike on March 25, 2013, 12:15:16 PM
Since he is an Orthodox catechumen, he is part of us.

"Us"? He attends an OCA parish, you are a true-genuine-patristic-something type.

Oh, I forgot. You also can't decide whether you left your previous Church or not.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: PeterTheAleut on March 25, 2013, 12:24:12 PM
It is not wild, its fact.  You refuse to submit yourselves to the supreme infallible Roman Pontiff, therefore you are not Catholic. You have no authority to declare the Pope as a heretic because the Popes all the way from the 1100s have declared themselves to be above judgement of any mortal.  Only God can judge them.  Of course we Orthodox do not believe that, but we also do not claim to be Roman Catholics, so no problems there.  As a Roman Catholic, you must believe that, and if you believe that then you have to accept the current Pope.  To declare the Pope heretic is to deny a 900 year old teaching of the Roman Catholic Church (you only reject Vatican II so you cannot reject this teaching) that the Pope is above judgement by any mere human being.  And if you deny that teaching, you are not Roman Catholic.

For those of us who has 33 years of Roman Catholic catechism in our heads, we just don't want to put such information to waste  ;D

I'm trying to fnd some consistency in your posts. But I fail.

First you, using the phrase "we Orthodox" (could you remind me when were you received into the Church? I missed that) infallibly proclaim what "we Orthodox" believe or not believe. Then you defend the Roman Catholic Church from some other Roman Catholics who do not agree with it.

Can you decide what are you? Catholic? Orthodox? Orthodox catechuman? What do you believe?

I for one think Choy has consistently put forth these views not as his own, but as what he has been taught in the Orthodox and Catholic Catechism classes respectively.
I don't think that's what Mike is addressing. If choy is really an Orthodox catechumen as he says he is, then why does he continue to insert himself into arguments internal to the Roman Catholic Church that he left? Such internecine RC squabbles should no longer be his concern, since he left them behind.
While I think Choy is just a great guy, you know very well that ex-Catholics can't help themselves.  :D
I can tell. ::) ;)
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: choy on March 25, 2013, 01:14:11 PM
Choy is no longer Catholic, but is not yet Orthodox.

This makes me feel like Britney Spears.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: choy on March 25, 2013, 01:15:27 PM
"Us"? He attends an OCA parish, you are a true-genuine-patristic-something type.

I wasn't aware that Orthodoxy is like Theosis, where some are just more Orthodox than others.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: choy on March 25, 2013, 01:17:05 PM
I'm trying to fnd some consistency in your posts. But I fail.

First you, using the phrase "we Orthodox" (could you remind me when were you received into the Church? I missed that) infallibly proclaim what "we Orthodox" believe or not believe. Then you defend the Roman Catholic Church from some other Roman Catholics who do not agree with it.

Can you decide what are you? Catholic? Orthodox? Orthodox catechuman? What do you believe?

If you have a problem to the times I use "we" as I relate teachings that were given to me, you can write to my bishop and ask him why my priest told me that those are what the Orthodox believe.

I am Orthodox and I believe what the Orthodox believe.  But again, am I supposed to just develop amnesia for the 36 years I was Catholic?  Am I supposed to forget what the Roman Catholic Church says what makes a Catholic or not?
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: mike on March 25, 2013, 01:20:45 PM
But again, am I supposed to just develop amnesia for the 36 years I was Catholic?  Am I supposed to forget what the Roman Catholic Church says what makes a Catholic or not?

"Should I stop being Roman Catholic when I join the Orthodox Church?"

Yeah, pretty much.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: choy on March 25, 2013, 01:21:42 PM
I don't think that's what Mike is addressing. If choy is really an Orthodox catechumen as he says he is, then why does he continue to insert himself into arguments internal to the Roman Catholic Church that he left? Such internecine RC squabbles should no longer be his concern, since he left them behind.

Should I pretend that I do not know what makes a Roman Catholic or not per Roman Catholic teaching?
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: choy on March 25, 2013, 01:22:10 PM
But again, am I supposed to just develop amnesia for the 36 years I was Catholic?  Am I supposed to forget what the Roman Catholic Church says what makes a Catholic or not?

"Should I stop being Roman Catholic when I join the Orthodox Church?"

Yeah, pretty much.

Oh, so you have a right to speak for me and I don't have a right to speak for you?
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: J Michael on March 25, 2013, 01:33:26 PM
But again, am I supposed to just develop amnesia for the 36 years I was Catholic?  Am I supposed to forget what the Roman Catholic Church says what makes a Catholic or not?

"Should I stop being Roman Catholic when I join the Orthodox Church?"

Yeah, pretty much.

Which is totally different from erasing from his memory and thought processes 30+ years of Catholic teaching.  And I think you probably know that.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: minasoliman on March 25, 2013, 02:13:20 PM
Choy is no longer Catholic, but is not yet Orthodox.

This makes me feel like Britney Spears.
LOL
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: lovesupreme on March 25, 2013, 02:20:22 PM
Choy is no longer Catholic, but is not yet Orthodox.

This makes me feel like Britney Spears.
LOL

Whoops, I apostatized and converted again!

J/K ;)
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: PeterTheAleut on March 25, 2013, 02:31:59 PM
I don't think that's what Mike is addressing. If choy is really an Orthodox catechumen as he says he is, then why does he continue to insert himself into arguments internal to the Roman Catholic Church that he left? Such internecine RC squabbles should no longer be his concern, since he left them behind.

Should I pretend that I do not know what makes a Roman Catholic or not per Roman Catholic teaching?
No, just stop pretending that you know. What does it matter to you what makes a Roman Catholic or not per Roman Catholic teaching, anyway? You left all that behind, remember?
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Apotheoun on March 25, 2013, 02:55:28 PM
But again, am I supposed to just develop amnesia for the 36 years I was Catholic?  Am I supposed to forget what the Roman Catholic Church says what makes a Catholic or not?

"Should I stop being Roman Catholic when I join the Orthodox Church?"

Yeah, pretty much.

Oh, so you have a right to speak for me and I don't have a right to speak for you?
I noticed that too.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Apotheoun on March 25, 2013, 02:56:34 PM
I don't think that's what Mike is addressing. If choy is really an Orthodox catechumen as he says he is, then why does he continue to insert himself into arguments internal to the Roman Catholic Church that he left? Such internecine RC squabbles should no longer be his concern, since he left them behind.

Should I pretend that I do not know what makes a Roman Catholic or not per Roman Catholic teaching?
No, just stop pretending that you know. What does it matter to you what makes a Roman Catholic or not per Roman Catholic teaching, anyway? You left all that behind, remember?
Maybe it matters to him. A person can have knowledge about a group without belonging to it. Why are you so concerned about what Choy says and does?
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Apotheoun on March 25, 2013, 03:00:07 PM
There is no love of the Code of Canon Law in the Melkite Church

... which, of course, you aren't a part of.

Why should they care about it? They follow the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches instead.
When did you become a Melkite Catholic?
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: SolEX01 on March 25, 2013, 03:09:36 PM
I am Orthodox

You can't assert that, yet.

and I believe what the Orthodox believe.

What do the Orthodox believe and how is that different from Roman/Greek Catholicism?

But again, am I supposed to just develop amnesia for the 36 years I was Catholic?  Am I supposed to forget what the Roman Catholic Church says what makes a Catholic or not?

When you receive the Holy Oil of Chrismation, you become a new man having put the old man in the past.  If you're still lured by Roman/Greek Catholicism, perhaps you need to discuss that with your Priest who's supervising your catechism.  You're not smarter than your Priest.   :o
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Maria on March 25, 2013, 03:11:59 PM
But again, am I supposed to just develop amnesia for the 36 years I was Catholic?  Am I supposed to forget what the Roman Catholic Church says what makes a Catholic or not?

"Should I stop being Roman Catholic when I join the Orthodox Church?"

Yeah, pretty much.

Which is totally different from erasing from his memory and thought processes 30+ years of Catholic teaching.  And I think you probably know that.

I also have 30+ years of Catholic teaching, including time spent at a Catholic university and in a convent.
And yes, if we continue to treat catechumens with disrespect, and fail to pray for them, they might not persevere. And the fault will be ours because of our lack of patience and love.

Could we return to the original topic?
If the original topic has been fully discussed, I would like make a suggestion: Please lock this thread permanently.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Apotheoun on March 25, 2013, 03:23:29 PM
If you're still lured by Roman/Greek Catholicism . . .
I didn't know that Choy was still attracted to the Roman Catholic Church, in the sense of wanting to be Catholic, where did he indicate that he is?
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Apotheoun on March 25, 2013, 03:27:09 PM
Could we return to the original topic?
If the original topic has been fully discussed, I would like make a suggestion: Please lock this thread permanently.
That might be a good idea, since the thread seems to have devolved into a "let's be rude to Choy" thread for some posters.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Pan Michał on March 25, 2013, 03:27:47 PM
I am Orthodox and I believe what the Orthodox believe.  But again, am I supposed to just develop amnesia for the 36 years I was Catholic?  Am I supposed to forget what the Roman Catholic Church says what makes a Catholic or not?

You should not renounce anything, but bring all that is best in RCC with you and enrich with it the Orthodox Church. You should not judge other people and tell what makes a catholic a catholic - just as you shouldn't have when being catholic.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: SolEX01 on March 25, 2013, 03:29:56 PM
If you're still lured by Roman/Greek Catholicism . . .
I didn't know that Choy was still attracted to the Roman Catholic Church, in the sense of wanting to be Catholic, where did he indicate that he is?

I was making a friendly suggestion because he is a cathecumen and he has expressed strong feelings for both Orthodoxy and Catholicism throughout his posting history here. . . .
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Apotheoun on March 25, 2013, 03:35:22 PM
I was making a friendly suggestion because he is a cathecumen and he has expressed strong feelings for both Orthodoxy and Catholicism throughout his posting history here. . . .
I see. I was looking at this thread, and taking into account the posts he has made since his conversion to Orthodoxy, but if I had also taken into account his posts while he was a Catholic, I suppose - like you - I would be confused on the matter. But why take into account his posts from his time as a Catholic? In this thread I have not seen Choy say that he wants to be Catholic again; instead, all I have seen him do is apply the knowledge (30 some years worth) he has about the Catholic Church. Certainly there is nothing wrong with doing that is there (i.e. , applying the knowledge he possesses)? I used to be a High Church Anglican, and when I became Catholic I did not lose all the knowledge and experience I had of being a member of that ecclesial body.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Peter J on March 25, 2013, 03:48:27 PM
Since he is an Orthodox catechumen, he is part of us.

"Us"? He attends an OCA parish, you are a true-genuine-patristic-something type.

Oh, I forgot. You also can't decide whether you left your previous Church or not.

Hmmm ... I wasn't aware of that. (I mean, I was aware that Maria is used to be Catholic, but not that she has doubts about whether she left.)

I guess that throws a new light on her recent proclamation that the Maronite Patriarch shouldn't be a cardinal.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Maria on March 25, 2013, 03:51:27 PM
Since he is an Orthodox catechumen, he is part of us.

"Us"? He attends an OCA parish, you are a true-genuine-patristic-something type.

Oh, I forgot. You also can't decide whether you left your previous Church or not.

Hmmm ... I wasn't aware of that. (I mean, I was aware that Maria is used to be Catholic, but not that she has doubts about whether she left.)

I guess that throws a new light on her recent proclamation that the Maronite Patriarch shouldn't be a cardinal.

I was a Melkite, then I was chrismated into World Orthodoxy.
Now I am a member of the Genuine Orthodox Church of Greece under Kallinikos.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: SolEX01 on March 25, 2013, 03:51:51 PM
I was making a friendly suggestion because he is a cathecumen and he has expressed strong feelings for both Orthodoxy and Catholicism throughout his posting history here. . . .
I see. I was looking at this thread, and taking into account the posts he has made since his conversion to Orthodoxy,

He hasn't converted.  I don't see being a cathecumen as equaling a full conversion.

but if I had also taken into account his posts while he was a Catholic I - like you - would be confused on the matter. But why take into account his posts from his time as a Catholic? In this thread I have not seen Choy say that he wants to be Catholic again; instead, all I have seen him do is apply the knowledge (30 some years worth) he has about the Catholic Church. Certainly there is nothing wrong with doing that is there (i.e. , applying the knowledge he possesses)? I used to be a High Church Anglican, and when I became Catholic I did not lose all the knowledge and experience I had of being a member of that ecclesial body.

This forum has a history of cathecumens who become Orthodox, hyperdox and subsequently burn out.  Others and myself are responding to that trend.  I really hope Choy becomes and remains Orthodox.   :)
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Apotheoun on March 25, 2013, 03:52:59 PM
I guess that throws a new light on her recent proclamation that the Maronite Patriarch shouldn't be a cardinal.
What kind of light? Anybody who wants to (Catholic or non-Catholic, Roman or Eastern) can have an opinion on whether or not Eastern Catholic Patriarchs should be cardinals.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Apotheoun on March 25, 2013, 03:54:30 PM
This forum has a history of cathecumens who become Orthodox, hyperdox and subsequently burn out.  Others and myself are responding to that trend.  I really hope Choy becomes and remains Orthodox.   :)
Well, you can't really judge Choy by the histories of others. He is an individual. Whether he completes his conversion or not will be determined by his own choices and God's, and not by the history of what has happened on this forum. God bless.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Maria on March 25, 2013, 03:57:02 PM
This forum has a history of cathecumens who become Orthodox, hyperdox and subsequently burn out.  Others and myself are responding to that trend.  I really hope Choy becomes and remains Orthodox.   :)
Well, you can't really judge Choy by the histories of others. He is an individual. Whether he completes his conversion or not will be determined by his own choices and God's, and not by the history of what has happened on this forum. God bless.

Where is the Christian love?

This thread has devolved into a free for all.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Apotheoun on March 25, 2013, 03:59:15 PM
I must say that I am surprised by the degree of rudeness that has been directed towards Choy by some posters in this thread. He is castigated by some people for taking it upon himself to "speak for the Orthodox" and yet some of the very same posters who scold him take it upon themselves to speak for the Orthodox in other threads. It is sad to witness. Thankfully I know several Orthodox Christians in real life (not in the pseudo-reality of the internet) and they do not exhibit this rude and hypocritical attitude, and I praise God for that.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Schultz on March 25, 2013, 04:04:51 PM
It is not wild, its fact.  You refuse to submit yourselves to the supreme infallible Roman Pontiff, therefore you are not Catholic. You have no authority to declare the Pope as a heretic because the Popes all the way from the 1100s have declared themselves to be above judgement of any mortal.  Only God can judge them.  Of course we Orthodox do not believe that, but we also do not claim to be Roman Catholics, so no problems there.  As a Roman Catholic, you must believe that, and if you believe that then you have to accept the current Pope.  To declare the Pope heretic is to deny a 900 year old teaching of the Roman Catholic Church (you only reject Vatican II so you cannot reject this teaching) that the Pope is above judgement by any mere human being.  And if you deny that teaching, you are not Roman Catholic.

For those of us who has 33 years of Roman Catholic catechism in our heads, we just don't want to put such information to waste  ;D

I'm trying to fnd some consistency in your posts. But I fail.

First you, using the phrase "we Orthodox" (could you remind me when were you received into the Church? I missed that) infallibly proclaim what "we Orthodox" believe or not believe. Then you defend the Roman Catholic Church from some other Roman Catholics who do not agree with it.

Can you decide what are you? Catholic? Orthodox? Orthodox catechuman? What do you believe?

I for one think Choy has consistently put forth these views not as his own, but as what he has been taught in the Orthodox and Catholic Catechism classes respectively.
I don't think that's what Mike is addressing. If choy is really an Orthodox catechumen as he says he is, then why does he continue to insert himself into arguments internal to the Roman Catholic Church that he left? Such internecine RC squabbles should no longer be his concern, since he left them behind.

I still do this occasionally (eg "insert myself into arguments internal to the RCC") on here.  Why?  Because I still have family who are RC.  My wife is still (nominally) RC.  If I see someone posting some really confused or outright wrong statements re: RC belief, I feel compelled to correct them, not because I think the beliefs themselves are true, but because one should accept or reject a teaching based on what the teaching actually is.  I don't do it as often as I used to because people like Papist, J Michael, and others are usually quick to the punch and my input is totally unnecessary.  When I do, I try to do it as clinically as possible, so to speak.

Telling choy to just forget what he knows is ridiculous and counter-productive to this strengths as a catechumen.  Should he do it all the time?  Probably not and I would counsel him, as an ex-RC myself, to pick his battles wisely.  
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Maria on March 25, 2013, 04:07:00 PM
It is not wild, its fact.  You refuse to submit yourselves to the supreme infallible Roman Pontiff, therefore you are not Catholic. You have no authority to declare the Pope as a heretic because the Popes all the way from the 1100s have declared themselves to be above judgement of any mortal.  Only God can judge them.  Of course we Orthodox do not believe that, but we also do not claim to be Roman Catholics, so no problems there.  As a Roman Catholic, you must believe that, and if you believe that then you have to accept the current Pope.  To declare the Pope heretic is to deny a 900 year old teaching of the Roman Catholic Church (you only reject Vatican II so you cannot reject this teaching) that the Pope is above judgement by any mere human being.  And if you deny that teaching, you are not Roman Catholic.

For those of us who has 33 years of Roman Catholic catechism in our heads, we just don't want to put such information to waste  ;D

I'm trying to fnd some consistency in your posts. But I fail.

First you, using the phrase "we Orthodox" (could you remind me when were you received into the Church? I missed that) infallibly proclaim what "we Orthodox" believe or not believe. Then you defend the Roman Catholic Church from some other Roman Catholics who do not agree with it.

Can you decide what are you? Catholic? Orthodox? Orthodox catechuman? What do you believe?

I for one think Choy has consistently put forth these views not as his own, but as what he has been taught in the Orthodox and Catholic Catechism classes respectively.
I don't think that's what Mike is addressing. If choy is really an Orthodox catechumen as he says he is, then why does he continue to insert himself into arguments internal to the Roman Catholic Church that he left? Such internecine RC squabbles should no longer be his concern, since he left them behind.

I still do this occasionally (eg "insert myself into arguments internal to the RCC") on here.  Why?  Because I still have family who are RC.  My wife is still (nominally) RC.  If I see someone posting some really confused or outright wrong statements re: RC belief, I feel compelled to correct them, not because I think the beliefs themselves are true, but because one should accept or reject a teaching based on what the teaching actually is.  I don't do it as often as I used to because people like Papist, J Michael, and others are usually quick to the punch and my input is totally unnecessary.  When I do, I try to do it as clinically as possible, so to speak.

Telling choy to just forget what he knows is ridiculous and counter-productive to this strengths as a catechumen.  Should he do it all the time?  Probably not and I would counsel him, as an ex-RC myself, to pick his battles wisely.  

A voice of reason! I wish you were still a mod here.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: orthonorm on March 25, 2013, 04:10:28 PM
Since he is an Orthodox catechumen, he is part of us.

"Us"? He attends an OCA parish, you are a true-genuine-patristic-something type.

Oh, I forgot. You also can't decide whether you left your previous Church or not.

Hmmm ... I wasn't aware of that. (I mean, I was aware that Maria is used to be Catholic, but not that she has doubts about whether she left.)

I guess that throws a new light on her recent proclamation that the Maronite Patriarch shouldn't be a cardinal.

I was a Melkite, then I was chrismated into World Orthodoxy.
Now I am a member of the Genuine Orthodox Church of Greece under Kallinikos.

Whenever anything has to tell you it's first, genuine, etc., especially in its brand name, take the odds and bet against that claim.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Shiny on March 25, 2013, 04:14:12 PM
Since he is an Orthodox catechumen, he is part of us.

"Us"? He attends an OCA parish, you are a true-genuine-patristic-something type.

Oh, I forgot. You also can't decide whether you left your previous Church or not.

Hmmm ... I wasn't aware of that. (I mean, I was aware that Maria is used to be Catholic, but not that she has doubts about whether she left.)

I guess that throws a new light on her recent proclamation that the Maronite Patriarch shouldn't be a cardinal.

I was a Melkite, then I was chrismated into World Orthodoxy.
Now I am a member of the Genuine Orthodox Church of Greece under Kallinikos.

Whenever anything has to tell you it's first, genuine, etc., especially in its brand name, take the odds and bet against that claim.
Well that works too.

Now don't get me started on what I actually think about that group.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Apotheoun on March 25, 2013, 04:16:06 PM
It is not wild, its fact.  You refuse to submit yourselves to the supreme infallible Roman Pontiff, therefore you are not Catholic. You have no authority to declare the Pope as a heretic because the Popes all the way from the 1100s have declared themselves to be above judgement of any mortal.  Only God can judge them.  Of course we Orthodox do not believe that, but we also do not claim to be Roman Catholics, so no problems there.  As a Roman Catholic, you must believe that, and if you believe that then you have to accept the current Pope.  To declare the Pope heretic is to deny a 900 year old teaching of the Roman Catholic Church (you only reject Vatican II so you cannot reject this teaching) that the Pope is above judgement by any mere human being.  And if you deny that teaching, you are not Roman Catholic.

For those of us who has 33 years of Roman Catholic catechism in our heads, we just don't want to put such information to waste  ;D

I'm trying to fnd some consistency in your posts. But I fail.

First you, using the phrase "we Orthodox" (could you remind me when were you received into the Church? I missed that) infallibly proclaim what "we Orthodox" believe or not believe. Then you defend the Roman Catholic Church from some other Roman Catholics who do not agree with it.

Can you decide what are you? Catholic? Orthodox? Orthodox catechuman? What do you believe?

I for one think Choy has consistently put forth these views not as his own, but as what he has been taught in the Orthodox and Catholic Catechism classes respectively.
I don't think that's what Mike is addressing. If choy is really an Orthodox catechumen as he says he is, then why does he continue to insert himself into arguments internal to the Roman Catholic Church that he left? Such internecine RC squabbles should no longer be his concern, since he left them behind.

I still do this occasionally (eg "insert myself into arguments internal to the RCC") on here.  Why?  Because I still have family who are RC.  My wife is still (nominally) RC.  If I see someone posting some really confused or outright wrong statements re: RC belief, I feel compelled to correct them, not because I think the beliefs themselves are true, but because one should accept or reject a teaching based on what the teaching actually is.  I don't do it as often as I used to because people like Papist, J Michael, and others are usually quick to the punch and my input is totally unnecessary.  When I do, I try to do it as clinically as possible, so to speak.

Telling choy to just forget what he knows is ridiculous and counter-productive to this strengths as a catechumen.  Should he do it all the time?  Probably not and I would counsel him, as an ex-RC myself, to pick his battles wisely.  

A voice of reason! I wish you were still a mod here.
I agree. Thanks for the excellent post Schultz.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Schultz on March 25, 2013, 04:33:53 PM
Since he is an Orthodox catechumen, he is part of us.

"Us"? He attends an OCA parish, you are a true-genuine-patristic-something type.

Oh, I forgot. You also can't decide whether you left your previous Church or not.

Hmmm ... I wasn't aware of that. (I mean, I was aware that Maria is used to be Catholic, but not that she has doubts about whether she left.)

I guess that throws a new light on her recent proclamation that the Maronite Patriarch shouldn't be a cardinal.

I was a Melkite, then I was chrismated into World Orthodoxy.
Now I am a member of the Genuine Orthodox Church of Greece under Kallinikos.

Whenever anything has to tell you it's first, genuine, etc., especially in its brand name, take the odds and bet against that claim.

The exception is the name of my new scooter, produced the Genuine Scooter Company.  A Genuine Stella actually is a genuine Stella. ;)
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: LizaSymonenko on March 25, 2013, 04:34:08 PM
Why is everyone so concerned with Choy, and asking him to "prove" his Faith?

Has anyone asked you to prove yours?


Besides, why are "known" Orthodox so concerned about what he says about Roman Catholicism?  Seriously, folks....relax a bit.  If he claimed to be Orthodox and was preaching anti-Orthodox dogma in the Faith Issues Forum, then you can question his Orthodox knowledge, but, as that's not the case, I suggest everyone back down a bit.


I've had a number of jobs in my life.  I've been trained thoroughly for each one.  As it is, "jobs" don't last forever anymore, and I find myself having to learn something new almost every few years.  That doesn't mean I have forgotten what I did before....and if a topic concerning my previous job came up in a conversation, I would feel qualified to add my two cents.  This is what's going on with Choy.  He knows about the RC, and has every right to discuss it.

Isn't this supposed to be a discussion?  Not everyone will always agree....but, we should hear everyone out.  

Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: choy on March 25, 2013, 04:41:22 PM
I must say that I am surprised by the degree of rudeness that has been directed towards Choy by some posters in this thread. He is castigated by some people for taking it upon himself to "speak for the Orthodox" and yet some of the very same posters who scold him take it upon themselves to speak for the Orthodox in other threads. It is sad to witness. Thankfully I know several Orthodox Christians in real life (not in the pseudo-reality of the internet) and they do not exhibit this rude and hypocritical attitude, and I praise God for that.

If I were to base my conversion to Orthodoxy based on the general attitude on this forum (and of course there are a bunch of people who are wonderful and have been great examples of what an Orthodox Christian is based on what they show on this forum), I would not have converted.  Thankfully the people in my parish never treated me in such a way, even the time I wasn't sure I was converting or not.  And my priest especially, always showed me love and care and never pressured me to be anything I am not or do something I do not want to do.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: choy on March 25, 2013, 04:42:26 PM
Choy is no longer Catholic, but is not yet Orthodox.

This makes me feel like Britney Spears.
LOL

Whoops, I apostatized and converted again!

J/K ;)

Heheheh, I was talking about her other song, "Not a girl, not yet a woman"  :D ;D :P
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: choy on March 25, 2013, 04:42:59 PM
I don't think that's what Mike is addressing. If choy is really an Orthodox catechumen as he says he is, then why does he continue to insert himself into arguments internal to the Roman Catholic Church that he left? Such internecine RC squabbles should no longer be his concern, since he left them behind.

Should I pretend that I do not know what makes a Roman Catholic or not per Roman Catholic teaching?
No, just stop pretending that you know. What does it matter to you what makes a Roman Catholic or not per Roman Catholic teaching, anyway? You left all that behind, remember?

The thing is, I do know.

And what does it matter to me?  I want people to be honest about it.  When I converted to Orthodoxy my priest was honest to me about what is Orthodox and what is not, including squashing any notion I have of me being "Orthodox in communion with Rome" being Eastern Catholic.  Being honest about one's situation is important.  Actually, being honest about everything is important.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Maria on March 25, 2013, 04:45:37 PM
I don't think that's what Mike is addressing. If choy is really an Orthodox catechumen as he says he is, then why does he continue to insert himself into arguments internal to the Roman Catholic Church that he left? Such internecine RC squabbles should no longer be his concern, since he left them behind.

Should I pretend that I do not know what makes a Roman Catholic or not per Roman Catholic teaching?
No, just stop pretending that you know. What does it matter to you what makes a Roman Catholic or not per Roman Catholic teaching, anyway? You left all that behind, remember?

The thing is, I do know.

Exactly, how can one stop pretending when they are not pretending?
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: orthonorm on March 25, 2013, 04:51:42 PM
Choy is no longer Catholic, but is not yet Orthodox.

This makes me feel like Britney Spears.
LOL

Whoops, I apostatized and converted again!

J/K ;)

Heheheh, I was talking about her other song, "Not a girl, not yet a woman"  :D ;D :P

If only you hadn't explained it . . .
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Peter J on March 25, 2013, 04:52:41 PM
I was a Melkite, then I was chrismated into World Orthodoxy.
Now I am a member of the Genuine Orthodox Church of Greece under Kallinikos.

So noted, although that's actually rather incidental to the point of my post ...

I guess that throws a new light on her [your] recent proclamation that the Maronite Patriarch shouldn't be a cardinal.

What kind of light? Anybody who wants to (Catholic or non-Catholic, Roman or Eastern) can have an opinion on whether or not Eastern Catholic Patriarchs should be cardinals.

I don't really have a precise thesis here, but it seems a little strange to me when Orthodox (or any non-Catholics for that matter) decide that the Maronite Catholic Patriarch shouldn't be a cardinal. (I would even feel a little strange saying that myself since I'm Melkite Catholic and not Maronite Catholic.)

Just saying.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: choy on March 25, 2013, 05:01:16 PM
I am Orthodox

You can't assert that, yet.

and I believe what the Orthodox believe.

What do the Orthodox believe and how is that different from Roman/Greek Catholicism?

But again, am I supposed to just develop amnesia for the 36 years I was Catholic?  Am I supposed to forget what the Roman Catholic Church says what makes a Catholic or not?

When you receive the Holy Oil of Chrismation, you become a new man having put the old man in the past.  If you're still lured by Roman/Greek Catholicism, perhaps you need to discuss that with your Priest who's supervising your catechism.  You're not smarter than your Priest.   :o

If there's a question I can answer, why shouldn't I answer it?  It's not about being lured.  I know these things, should I pretend I don't?  Just to give a false impression about being Orthodox and not caring about my former Church?  Of course I care, just not in the way you think.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: choy on March 25, 2013, 05:01:53 PM
Choy is no longer Catholic, but is not yet Orthodox.

This makes me feel like Britney Spears.
LOL

Whoops, I apostatized and converted again!

J/K ;)

Heheheh, I was talking about her other song, "Not a girl, not yet a woman"  :D ;D :P

If only you hadn't explained it . . .

I'd like to see who the Britney fans are out here  :D
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Maria on March 25, 2013, 05:02:17 PM
I was a Melkite, then I was chrismated into World Orthodoxy.
Now I am a member of the Genuine Orthodox Church of Greece under Kallinikos.

So noted, although that's actually rather incidental to the point of my post ...

I guess that throws a new light on her [your] recent proclamation that the Maronite Patriarch shouldn't be a cardinal.

What kind of light? Anybody who wants to (Catholic or non-Catholic, Roman or Eastern) can have an opinion on whether or not Eastern Catholic Patriarchs should be cardinals.

I don't really have a precise thesis here, but it seems a little strange to me when Orthodox (or any non-Catholics for that matter) decide that the Maronite Catholic Patriarch shouldn't be a cardinal. (I would even feel a little strange saying that myself since I'm Melkite Catholic and not Maronite Catholic.)

Just saying.

My ancestry is Maronite, but I knew quite a few Maronites who were upset that their church has been so latinized. They joined the Melkite Church.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Peter J on March 25, 2013, 05:08:10 PM
My ancestry is Maronite,

Not really the same as being Maronite. (Not that I'm trying to turn this into a discussion about Maronites.  :-X  :) )
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Maria on March 25, 2013, 05:12:55 PM
My ancestry is Maronite,

Not really the same as being Maronite. (Not that I'm trying to turn this into a discussion about Maronites.  :-X  :) )

Hey, I welcome the change. At least it is a positive change.

My Maronite ancestors wanted to blend in and become Americans, so they left the Maronite Church and became Roman Catholic. When I was looking into the Eastern Catholic Church where I live, the Maronite Church was at least an hour away (or more with traffic congestion) and these Maronites had the NO Mass. However, the Melkite Church was only 20 minutes away.

I wanted the ancient Aramaic liturgy, which I had attended in Atlanta, Georgia with my aunt, who had returned to her roots. That is why I started attending the Melkite Church, because they had their liturgy in Arabic, and I loved it there. However, the Melkite library contained largely Orthodox Christian books, so I started to look East, and the rest is history.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Melesine on March 25, 2013, 05:18:37 PM
I think some posters here would be well served by going back and rereading what they have posted to others. There is an obvious lack of Christian charity in some of the posts. I'm grateful that I have real life experience in a welcoming Orthodox parish so that I know that what I've read here by some ( not all) is not the norm for Orthodoxy. Some of you should be ashamed of the way you've conducted yourselves.

I hope this thread is locked. I think your forum would be well served with an ignore feature too.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Maria on March 25, 2013, 05:24:37 PM
I think some posters here would be well served by going back and rereading what they have posted to others. There is an obvious lack of Christian charity in some of the posts. I'm grateful that I have real life experience in a welcoming Orthodox parish so that I know that what I've read here by some ( not all) is not the norm for Orthodoxy. Some of you should be ashamed of the way you've conducted yourselves.

I hope this thread is locked. I think your forum would be well served with an ignore feature too.

Please forgive me if I have offended you by my posts.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: LizaSymonenko on March 25, 2013, 06:42:03 PM

So, I was talking with an RC coworker today, and he said that the Pope no longer claims infallibility.

He then asked me who our head hancho is, which gave me a great opportunity to give a short lesson in Orthodoxy. All bishops equal, first among equals and that Christ is at the Head of our Church.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: choy on March 25, 2013, 06:45:30 PM

So, I was talking with an RC coworker today, and he said that the Pope no longer claims infallibility.

He then asked me who our head hancho is, which gave me a great opportunity to give a short lesson in Orthodoxy. All bishops equal, first among equals and that Christ is at the Head of our Church.


That is always the difficulty in conversing with RCs regarding ecclesiology.  They always think the Orthodox Church is exactly like the Roman Catholic Church except that we don't want to follow the Pope of Rome.  It's a difficult concept to grasp for those who always looked for one "head honcho".
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Maria on March 25, 2013, 06:48:46 PM

So, I was talking with an RC coworker today, and he said that the Pope no longer claims infallibility.

He then asked me who our head hancho is, which gave me a great opportunity to give a short lesson in Orthodoxy. All bishops equal, first among equals and that Christ is at the Head of our Church.


I am getting so tired; can barely open my eyes. It is one of those days with a lot of pollen in the air.

Anyway, Liza, I thought that you were telling a joke about an RC cowboy at first.
I could use a good joke about now.  :laugh:

So, your coworker thinks that Papal infallibility is a relic of history?
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: SolEX01 on March 25, 2013, 06:57:12 PM
I am Orthodox

You can't assert that, yet.

and I believe what the Orthodox believe.

What do the Orthodox believe and how is that different from Roman/Greek Catholicism?

But again, am I supposed to just develop amnesia for the 36 years I was Catholic?  Am I supposed to forget what the Roman Catholic Church says what makes a Catholic or not?

When you receive the Holy Oil of Chrismation, you become a new man having put the old man in the past.  If you're still lured by Roman/Greek Catholicism, perhaps you need to discuss that with your Priest who's supervising your catechism.  You're not smarter than your Priest.   :o

If there's a question I can answer, why shouldn't I answer it?

Because answering is a temptation, a reminder of what you were.

It's not about being lured.  I know these things, should I pretend I don't?

It's not about pretending you don't know.  It's how that knowledge will impact your Orthodox faith.

Just to give a false impression about being Orthodox and not caring about my former Church?  Of course I care, just not in the way you think.

As long as you're being honest with yourself and your family regarding where you stand on the journey to Orthodoxy.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Maria on March 25, 2013, 06:58:51 PM
I am Orthodox

You can't assert that, yet.

and I believe what the Orthodox believe.

What do the Orthodox believe and how is that different from Roman/Greek Catholicism?

But again, am I supposed to just develop amnesia for the 36 years I was Catholic?  Am I supposed to forget what the Roman Catholic Church says what makes a Catholic or not?

When you receive the Holy Oil of Chrismation, you become a new man having put the old man in the past.  If you're still lured by Roman/Greek Catholicism, perhaps you need to discuss that with your Priest who's supervising your catechism.  You're not smarter than your Priest.   :o

If there's a question I can answer, why shouldn't I answer it?

Because answering is a temptation, a reminder of what you were.

It's not about being lured.  I know these things, should I pretend I don't?

It's not about pretending you don't know.  It's how that knowledge will impact your Orthodox faith.

Just to give a false impression about being Orthodox and not caring about my former Church?  Of course I care, just not in the way you think.

As long as you're being honest with yourself and your family regarding where you stand on the journey to Orthodoxy.

I thought that this discussion had been tabled.
And you bring it up again?
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Maria on March 25, 2013, 07:01:56 PM
Does anyone have an RC cowboy joke on papal infallibility or were the horses being replaced by horseless carriages?

Benz happened in 1896 in Germany.
In Cugnot, France, in 1791, there was a self propelled, three-wheeled steam engine, but it was quite grotesque.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: SolEX01 on March 25, 2013, 07:09:07 PM
I thought that this discussion had been tabled.
And you bring it up again?

The discussion between choy & me remains relevant to the thread.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Maria on March 25, 2013, 07:11:46 PM
I thought that this discussion had been tabled.
And you bring it up again?

The discussion between choy & me remains relevant to the thread.

Guys  ::)

You can take a topic off-topic and then claim it is on-topic because you are interested in it.

Linguists have done studies which show that men actually take the subject off-topic more than women do, and that men talk more than women do.

I took a graduate course in college which discussed this whole scenario as part of discourse analysis. And no, PtA, I am not going to provide links. I did my homework in that class.

Back on Papal Infallibility: If it were so true, they why did some German RC bishops renounce their bishoprics over it? 100 percent of the bishops did not agree with Papal Supremacy and Papal Infallibility. If Papal Infallibility did not make sense to Catholic Bishops, how can it make sense to priests and laity?
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: choy on March 25, 2013, 07:27:06 PM
Back on Papal Infallibility: If it were so true, they why did some German RC bishops renounce their bishoprics over it? 100 percent of the bishops did not agree with Papal Supremacy and Papal Infallibility. If Papal Infallibility did not make sense to Catholic Bishops, how can it make sense to priests and laity?

Speaking about veering off topic, that happens when you ask someone to defend Papal Infallibility by giving a First Millennium example.  The best one I've heard so far is a faulty interpretation of Acts 15 where there are numerous assumptions made which are not mentioned in the text.

Normally they would just start talking about something else that isn't really about infallibility, but they think it points to that.  Like how ecumenical councils are ratified by the Pope (which again is not true).
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: LizaSymonenko on March 25, 2013, 07:51:18 PM

There once was this RC cowboy.

He ran in to the general store and bought a pound if tobacco. He was thrilled because he had gotten word from a fellow wrangler that he was going to get a new pipe tonight. You see it was his birthday.

The wrangler had gotten the news from the cook, who had heard it from his wife.

When he got home he waited eagerly. His wife had made his favorite dinner, and they had settled down by the fire, when she handed him the brown paper wrapped package.

Putting on his best surprise face, he ripped it open - only to find a tie, not a pipe.

He shockingly reproached his wife and wanted to know what happened to the new pipe.

She thought a moment and then burst out, "not a new pipe!  You got a new Pope!"

:)
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Peter J on March 25, 2013, 08:02:47 PM
My ancestry is Maronite,

Not really the same as being Maronite. (Not that I'm trying to turn this into a discussion about Maronites.  :-X  :) )

Hey, I welcome the change. At least it is a positive change.

My Maronite ancestors wanted to blend in and become Americans, so they left the Maronite Church and became Roman Catholic. When I was looking into the Eastern Catholic Church where I live, the Maronite Church was at least an hour away (or more with traffic congestion) and these Maronites had the NO Mass.

Yeah, that sounds like my experience with a Maronite parish -- well, not the NO part, but that it was too far away and seemed pretty latinized. (I had already been going to a Melkite parish for 2 or 3 years at that point, so a latinized parish was a bit disappointing.)
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: mike on March 25, 2013, 08:07:02 PM
Hmmm ... I wasn't aware of that. (I mean, I was aware that Maria is used to be Catholic, but not that she has doubts about whether she left.)

I guess that throws a new light on her recent proclamation that the Maronite Patriarch shouldn't be a cardinal.

I mean her OCA => True Genuine switch. Taking into consideration the amount of posts she makes here about the OCA she probably is not definitely sure she made good choice.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: choy on March 25, 2013, 08:16:17 PM
My ancestry is Maronite,

Not really the same as being Maronite. (Not that I'm trying to turn this into a discussion about Maronites.  :-X  :) )

Hey, I welcome the change. At least it is a positive change.

My Maronite ancestors wanted to blend in and become Americans, so they left the Maronite Church and became Roman Catholic. When I was looking into the Eastern Catholic Church where I live, the Maronite Church was at least an hour away (or more with traffic congestion) and these Maronites had the NO Mass.

Yeah, that sounds like my experience with a Maronite parish -- well, not the NO part, but that it was too far away and seemed pretty latinized. (I had already been going to a Melkite parish for 2 or 3 years at that point, so a latinized parish was a bit disappointing.)

This may be a bit of a segway, but how do Maronites remove Latinizations?  Without an Orthodox counterpart to compare with, how can we say what they are doing are not just part of the development of their tradition?  And certainly Latinization can be part of that development.  Isn't the difference in Byzantine and Oriental traditions a result of the schism of Chalcedon?  Should Antiochians and Alexandrians de-Hellenize?
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Papist on March 25, 2013, 08:22:46 PM
Since he is an Orthodox catechumen, he is part of us.

"Us"? He attends an OCA parish, you are a true-genuine-patristic-something type.

Oh, I forgot. You also can't decide whether you left your previous Church or not.

Hmmm ... I wasn't aware of that. (I mean, I was aware that Maria is used to be Catholic, but not that she has doubts about whether she left.)

I guess that throws a new light on her recent proclamation that the Maronite Patriarch shouldn't be a cardinal.

I was a Melkite, then I was chrismated into World Orthodoxy.
Now I am a member of the Genuine Orthodox Church of Greece under Kallinikos.
Thanks for sharing this. It gives some context to your perspective.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Peter J on March 25, 2013, 09:46:38 PM
My ancestry is Maronite,

Not really the same as being Maronite. (Not that I'm trying to turn this into a discussion about Maronites.  :-X  :) )

Hey, I welcome the change. At least it is a positive change.

My Maronite ancestors wanted to blend in and become Americans, so they left the Maronite Church and became Roman Catholic. When I was looking into the Eastern Catholic Church where I live, the Maronite Church was at least an hour away (or more with traffic congestion) and these Maronites had the NO Mass.

Yeah, that sounds like my experience with a Maronite parish -- well, not the NO part, but that it was too far away and seemed pretty latinized. (I had already been going to a Melkite parish for 2 or 3 years at that point, so a latinized parish was a bit disappointing.)

This may be a bit of a segway, but how do Maronites remove Latinizations?  Without an Orthodox counterpart to compare with, how can we say what they are doing are not just part of the development of their tradition?  And certainly Latinization can be part of that development.  Isn't the difference in Byzantine and Oriental traditions a result of the schism of Chalcedon?  Should Antiochians and Alexandrians de-Hellenize?

I'll pretend I didn't hear that!

(Not that those are bad questions, I'm just not the person to answer them. And technically I'm not pretending, I really didn't hear that.)
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Maria on March 25, 2013, 09:48:02 PM
My ancestry is Maronite,

Not really the same as being Maronite. (Not that I'm trying to turn this into a discussion about Maronites.  :-X  :) )

Hey, I welcome the change. At least it is a positive change.

My Maronite ancestors wanted to blend in and become Americans, so they left the Maronite Church and became Roman Catholic. When I was looking into the Eastern Catholic Church where I live, the Maronite Church was at least an hour away (or more with traffic congestion) and these Maronites had the NO Mass.

Yeah, that sounds like my experience with a Maronite parish -- well, not the NO part, but that it was too far away and seemed pretty latinized. (I had already been going to a Melkite parish for 2 or 3 years at that point, so a latinized parish was a bit disappointing.)

This may be a bit of a segway, but how do Maronites remove Latinizations?  Without an Orthodox counterpart to compare with, how can we say what they are doing are not just part of the development of their tradition?  And certainly Latinization can be part of that development.  Isn't the difference in Byzantine and Oriental traditions a result of the schism of Chalcedon?  Should Antiochians and Alexandrians de-Hellenize?

The first latinization to remove is the NO Mass with a return of the Aramaic Liturgy or a decent translation of the Aramaic Liturgy.

Do Maronites have a paraclesis or akathist hymn to the Theotokos or some other non-Latin devotion to the Holy Theotokos?

Remove the Stations of the Cross, and replace them with icons (if those are in their tradition).

[Have you heard the old IRA joke about the Stations?]
There was this Irish chap who confessed to the priest that he had bombed the trains.
The priest replied, then do the Stations.



Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: minasoliman on March 25, 2013, 09:50:26 PM
I hope we didn't lose our dear Melesine with all this side talk.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: choy on March 25, 2013, 10:55:30 PM
I hope we didn't lose our dear Melesine with all this side talk.

Melesine at least is in contact with a priest, someone who'll do a million times better than people in this thread (me included).
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: sedevacantist on March 25, 2013, 10:55:55 PM
The Catholic Encyclopedia
, “Heresy,” 1914, Vol. 7, p. 261: “
The pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church.”
St. Robert Bellarmine, Cardinal and Doctor of the Church,


And that's why the Orthodox Church hasn't had a Roman Pope since 1054...
so you believe all the popes after 1054 are simply heretics? and the ones before 1054 were not heretics? who is your leader, this guy, if so do you agree with his stance on abortion?

His Holiness, Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople when he visited San Francisco in 1990 made the following statement on the Orthodox position on abortion-

Although the Orthodox Church believes the soul enters the body at conception and, generally speaking, respects human life and the continuation of the pregnancy,” Barthlomew said, the churchalso “respects the liberty and freedom of all human persons and all Christian couples . . . . We are not allowed to enter the bedrooms of the Christian couples,” he also said. “We cannot generalize. There are many reasons for a couple to go toward abortion.” (San Francisco Chronicle-7/20/90p.A22)
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Peter J on March 25, 2013, 10:59:38 PM
My ancestry is Maronite,

Not really the same as being Maronite. (Not that I'm trying to turn this into a discussion about Maronites.  :-X  :) )

Hey, I welcome the change. At least it is a positive change.

My Maronite ancestors wanted to blend in and become Americans, so they left the Maronite Church and became Roman Catholic. When I was looking into the Eastern Catholic Church where I live, the Maronite Church was at least an hour away (or more with traffic congestion) and these Maronites had the NO Mass.

Yeah, that sounds like my experience with a Maronite parish -- well, not the NO part, but that it was too far away and seemed pretty latinized. (I had already been going to a Melkite parish for 2 or 3 years at that point, so a latinized parish was a bit disappointing.)

This may be a bit of a segway, but how do Maronites remove Latinizations?  Without an Orthodox counterpart to compare with, how can we say what they are doing are not just part of the development of their tradition?  And certainly Latinization can be part of that development.  Isn't the difference in Byzantine and Oriental traditions a result of the schism of Chalcedon?  Should Antiochians and Alexandrians de-Hellenize?

I'll pretend I didn't hear that!

(Not that those are bad questions, I'm just not the person to answer them. And technically I'm not pretending, I really didn't hear that.)

Hmmm ... thought someone would chuckle at that. I guess it just goes to show that you never know.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: JoeS2 on March 25, 2013, 11:00:37 PM
The Catholic Encyclopedia
, “Heresy,” 1914, Vol. 7, p. 261: “
The pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church.”
St. Robert Bellarmine, Cardinal and Doctor of the Church,


And that's why the Orthodox Church hasn't had a Roman Pope since 1054...
so you believe all the popes after 1054 are simply heretics? and the ones before 1054 were not heretics? who is your leader, this guy, if so do you agree with his stance on abortion?

His Holiness, Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople when he visited San Francisco in 1990 made the following statement on the Orthodox position on abortion-

Although the Orthodox Church believes the soul enters the body at conception and, generally speaking, respects human life and the continuation of the pregnancy,” Barthlomew said, the churchalso “respects the liberty and freedom of all human persons and all Christian couples . . . . We are not allowed to enter the bedrooms of the Christian couples,” he also said. “We cannot generalize. There are many reasons for a couple to go toward abortion.” (San Francisco Chronicle-7/20/90p.A22)

His Holiness Bartholomew is not infallible.   He can make mistakes.  
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: sedevacantist on March 25, 2013, 11:01:32 PM
It is not wild, its fact.  You refuse to submit yourselves to the supreme infallible Roman Pontiff, therefore you are not Catholic. You have no authority to declare the Pope as a heretic because the Popes all the way from the 1100s have declared themselves to be above judgement of any mortal.  Only God can judge them.  Of course we Orthodox do not believe that, but we also do not claim to be Roman Catholics, so no problems there.  As a Roman Catholic, you must believe that, and if you believe that then you have to accept the current Pope.  To declare the Pope heretic is to deny a 900 year old teaching of the Roman Catholic Church (you only reject Vatican II so you cannot reject this teaching) that the Pope is above judgement by any mere human being.  And if you deny that teaching, you are not Roman Catholic.


For those of us who has 33 years of Roman Catholic catechism in our heads, we just don't want to put such information to waste  ;D

I'm trying to fnd some consistency in your posts. But I fail.

First you, using the phrase "we Orthodox" (could you remind me when were you received into the Church? I missed that) infallibly proclaim what "we Orthodox" believe or not believe. Then you defend the Roman Catholic Church from some other Roman Catholics who do not agree with it.

Can you decide what are you? Catholic? Orthodox? Orthodox catechuman? What do you believe?

I for one think Choy has consistently put forth these views not as his own, but as what he has been taught in the Orthodox and Catholic Catechism classes respectively.
I don't think that's what Mike is addressing. If choy is really an Orthodox catechumen as he says he is, then why does he continue to insert himself into arguments internal to the Roman Catholic Church that he left? Such internecine RC squabbles should no longer be his concern, since he left them behind.
While I think Choy is just a great guy, you know very well that ex-Catholics can't help themselves.  :D
he may  be a great guy but he was never a catholic, he belonged to the vatican 2 sect and doesn't know what he's talking about, as for your question about Pope Pius X11 I'm not aware of others saying he was an anti pope, he wasn't perfect that's for sure .
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Maria on March 25, 2013, 11:01:58 PM
The Catholic Encyclopedia
, “Heresy,” 1914, Vol. 7, p. 261: “
The pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church.”
St. Robert Bellarmine, Cardinal and Doctor of the Church,


And that's why the Orthodox Church hasn't had a Roman Pope since 1054...
so you believe all the popes after 1054 are simply heretics? and the ones before 1054 were not heretics? who is your leader, this guy, if so do you agree with his stance on abortion?

His Holiness, Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople when he visited San Francisco in 1990 made the following statement on the Orthodox position on abortion-

Although the Orthodox Church believes the soul enters the body at conception and, generally speaking, respects human life and the continuation of the pregnancy,” Barthlomew said, the churchalso “respects the liberty and freedom of all human persons and all Christian couples . . . . We are not allowed to enter the bedrooms of the Christian couples,” he also said. “We cannot generalize. There are many reasons for a couple to go toward abortion.” (San Francisco Chronicle-7/20/90p.A22)

BTW, the Orthodox Church does not teach ex-cathedra that the EP is infallible.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: SolEX01 on March 25, 2013, 11:06:05 PM
The Catholic Encyclopedia
, “Heresy,” 1914, Vol. 7, p. 261: “
The pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church.”
St. Robert Bellarmine, Cardinal and Doctor of the Church,


And that's why the Orthodox Church hasn't had a Roman Pope since 1054...
so you believe all the popes after 1054 are simply heretics? and the ones before 1054 were not heretics?

You don't believe all the popes after 1054 are canonical popes.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Maria on March 25, 2013, 11:06:18 PM
The Catholic Encyclopedia
, “Heresy,” 1914, Vol. 7, p. 261: “
The pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church.”
St. Robert Bellarmine, Cardinal and Doctor of the Church,


And that's why the Orthodox Church hasn't had a Roman Pope since 1054...
so you believe all the popes after 1054 are simply heretics? and the ones before 1054 were not heretics? who is your leader, this guy, if so do you agree with his stance on abortion?

His Holiness, Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople when he visited San Francisco in 1990 made the following statement on the Orthodox position on abortion-

Although the Orthodox Church believes the soul enters the body at conception and, generally speaking, respects human life and the continuation of the pregnancy,” Barthlomew said, the churchalso “respects the liberty and freedom of all human persons and all Christian couples . . . . We are not allowed to enter the bedrooms of the Christian couples,” he also said. “We cannot generalize. There are many reasons for a couple to go toward abortion.” (San Francisco Chronicle-7/20/90p.A22)

What is the difference between believing that all the popes after 1054 were heretics, and believing that all the popes after 1870, 1917, or 1959 were heretics?


You don't believe all the popes after 1054 are canonical Popes.

Exactly.

Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: stanley123 on March 25, 2013, 11:16:38 PM
The Catholic Encyclopedia
, “Heresy,” 1914, Vol. 7, p. 261: “
The pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church.”
St. Robert Bellarmine, Cardinal and Doctor of the Church,


And that's why the Orthodox Church hasn't had a Roman Pope since 1054...
so you believe all the popes after 1054 are simply heretics? and the ones before 1054 were not heretics? who is your leader, this guy, if so do you agree with his stance on abortion?

His Holiness, Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople when he visited San Francisco in 1990 made the following statement on the Orthodox position on abortion-

Although the Orthodox Church believes the soul enters the body at conception and, generally speaking, respects human life and the continuation of the pregnancy,” Barthlomew said, the churchalso “respects the liberty and freedom of all human persons and all Christian couples . . . . We are not allowed to enter the bedrooms of the Christian couples,” he also said. “We cannot generalize. There are many reasons for a couple to go toward abortion.” (San Francisco Chronicle-7/20/90p.A22)
I have heard that this newspaper article may have taken the quote out of context. You can't condemn a man because someone has misreported what he intended to say. Newspapers have been reporting stories that Pope Francis may favor same sex marriage, which is not true.  I would rely more on official Church statements all of which oppose abortion AFAIK.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: choy on March 25, 2013, 11:52:23 PM
he may  be a great guy but he was never a catholic, he belonged to the vatican 2 sect and doesn't know what he's talking about, as for your question about Pope Pius X11 I'm not aware of others saying he was an anti pope, he wasn't perfect that's for sure .

As people here have pointed out, that is history best left forgotten.  Right now I am 100% Catholic, in the very Orthodox sense of the word.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: choy on March 25, 2013, 11:53:42 PM
What is the difference between believing that all the popes after 1054 were heretics, and believing that all the popes after 1870, 1917, or 1959 were heretics?

Why, the all-holy, greatest council in the history of the universe, Trent.  Where all traditions come from  ::)
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: PeterTheAleut on March 26, 2013, 02:16:47 AM
The Catholic Encyclopedia
, “Heresy,” 1914, Vol. 7, p. 261: “
The pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church.”
St. Robert Bellarmine, Cardinal and Doctor of the Church,


And that's why the Orthodox Church hasn't had a Roman Pope since 1054...
so you believe all the popes after 1054 are simply heretics? and the ones before 1054 were not heretics? who is your leader, this guy, if so do you agree with his stance on abortion?

His Holiness, Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople when he visited San Francisco in 1990 made the following statement on the Orthodox position on abortion-

Although the Orthodox Church believes the soul enters the body at conception and, generally speaking, respects human life and the continuation of the pregnancy,” Barthlomew said, the churchalso “respects the liberty and freedom of all human persons and all Christian couples . . . . We are not allowed to enter the bedrooms of the Christian couples,” he also said. “We cannot generalize. There are many reasons for a couple to go toward abortion.” (San Francisco Chronicle-7/20/90p.A22)
That's already being discussed here: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,50566.0.html (http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,50566.0.html)
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Peter J on March 26, 2013, 09:09:47 AM
I think some posters here would be well served by going back and rereading what they have posted to others. There is an obvious lack of Christian charity in some of the posts. I'm grateful that I have real life experience in a welcoming Orthodox parish so that I know that what I've read here by some ( not all) is not the norm for Orthodoxy. Some of you should be ashamed of the way you've conducted yourselves.

I hope this thread is locked. I think your forum would be well served with an ignore feature too.

Hi Melesine. Glad to see this crazy thread hasn't scared you off completely.

In my experience, this forum ... well, has it ups and downs.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: minasoliman on March 26, 2013, 09:23:30 AM
I think some posters here would be well served by going back and rereading what they have posted to others. There is an obvious lack of Christian charity in some of the posts. I'm grateful that I have real life experience in a welcoming Orthodox parish so that I know that what I've read here by some ( not all) is not the norm for Orthodoxy. Some of you should be ashamed of the way you've conducted yourselves.

I hope this thread is locked. I think your forum would be well served with an ignore feature too.
I completely missed this post.  I'm glad for your strong spirituality!
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: jmbejdl on March 26, 2013, 09:48:05 AM
The Catholic Encyclopedia
, “Heresy,” 1914, Vol. 7, p. 261: “
The pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church.”
St. Robert Bellarmine, Cardinal and Doctor of the Church,


And that's why the Orthodox Church hasn't had a Roman Pope since 1054...
so you believe all the popes after 1054 are simply heretics? and the ones before 1054 were not heretics? who is your leader, this guy, if so do you agree with his stance on abortion?

His Holiness, Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople when he visited San Francisco in 1990 made the following statement on the Orthodox position on abortion-

Although the Orthodox Church believes the soul enters the body at conception and, generally speaking, respects human life and the continuation of the pregnancy,” Barthlomew said, the churchalso “respects the liberty and freedom of all human persons and all Christian couples . . . . We are not allowed to enter the bedrooms of the Christian couples,” he also said. “We cannot generalize. There are many reasons for a couple to go toward abortion.” (San Francisco Chronicle-7/20/90p.A22)

We don't have 'a leader'. We don't need 'a leader' and certainly not an infallible one. The head of the Church is Christ. All bishops are equal, and equally fallible. And that most certainly includes the Pope of Rome when he was still Orthodox just as it includes the Ecumenical Patriarch now. As for the Popes since 1054, they were all schismatics and/or heretics. The status of the Popes prior to 1054 varies, most were Orthodox, but some were certainly heretics (Honorius I springs to mind).

James
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Papist on March 26, 2013, 11:38:19 AM
The Catholic Encyclopedia
, “Heresy,” 1914, Vol. 7, p. 261: “
The pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church.”
St. Robert Bellarmine, Cardinal and Doctor of the Church,


And that's why the Orthodox Church hasn't had a Roman Pope since 1054...
so you believe all the popes after 1054 are simply heretics? and the ones before 1054 were not heretics? who is your leader, this guy, if so do you agree with his stance on abortion?

His Holiness, Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople when he visited San Francisco in 1990 made the following statement on the Orthodox position on abortion-

Although the Orthodox Church believes the soul enters the body at conception and, generally speaking, respects human life and the continuation of the pregnancy,” Barthlomew said, the churchalso “respects the liberty and freedom of all human persons and all Christian couples . . . . We are not allowed to enter the bedrooms of the Christian couples,” he also said. “We cannot generalize. There are many reasons for a couple to go toward abortion.” (San Francisco Chronicle-7/20/90p.A22)

We don't have 'a leader'. We don't need 'a leader' and certainly not an infallible one. The head of the Church is Christ. All bishops are equal, and equally fallible. And that most certainly includes the Pope of Rome when he was still Orthodox just as it includes the Ecumenical Patriarch now. As for the Popes since 1054, they were all schismatics and/or heretics. The status of the Popes prior to 1054 varies, most were Orthodox, but some were certainly heretics (Honorius I springs to mind).

James
Protestant: "We don't have a priest. We don't need "priest" and certainly not an ordained one. The head of our Church is Christ. All believers are equal, and equlally priests. And that most certainly includes Eastern Orthodox Bishops and Lay people. As for Patriarchs since the time of Constantine, they are all heretics. The status of priests/presbyters varies prior to that. Most were christians, but some were certainly sacramental heretics."
 
Of course this is my view, but you get the point.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Maria on March 26, 2013, 12:14:23 PM
Views on infallibility:

Orthodox Christians: The Church is infallible as it is the Bride of Christ with Christ as its head. This can be seen with the Seven Holy Ecumenical Councils and its Holy Canons.

Roman Catholics: Since 1870, the Pope of Rome has been declared to be supreme over all Christians and infallible whenever he issues a statement on faith or morals ex cathedral. Since the Pope is supreme even over the canons of the Seven Holy Ecumenical Councils, he can and has changed those Holy Canons. (See the New Code of Canon Law).

Protestants: The Bible is holy, infallible, and inerrant as it is the Word of God, so when the Bible is read, each Christian will interpret it with infallibility. Thus each Protestant is infallible, a priest, and a pope of his own family.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: jmbejdl on March 26, 2013, 12:22:55 PM
The Catholic Encyclopedia
, “Heresy,” 1914, Vol. 7, p. 261: “
The pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church.”
St. Robert Bellarmine, Cardinal and Doctor of the Church,


And that's why the Orthodox Church hasn't had a Roman Pope since 1054...
so you believe all the popes after 1054 are simply heretics? and the ones before 1054 were not heretics? who is your leader, this guy, if so do you agree with his stance on abortion?

His Holiness, Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople when he visited San Francisco in 1990 made the following statement on the Orthodox position on abortion-

Although the Orthodox Church believes the soul enters the body at conception and, generally speaking, respects human life and the continuation of the pregnancy,” Barthlomew said, the churchalso “respects the liberty and freedom of all human persons and all Christian couples . . . . We are not allowed to enter the bedrooms of the Christian couples,” he also said. “We cannot generalize. There are many reasons for a couple to go toward abortion.” (San Francisco Chronicle-7/20/90p.A22)

We don't have 'a leader'. We don't need 'a leader' and certainly not an infallible one. The head of the Church is Christ. All bishops are equal, and equally fallible. And that most certainly includes the Pope of Rome when he was still Orthodox just as it includes the Ecumenical Patriarch now. As for the Popes since 1054, they were all schismatics and/or heretics. The status of the Popes prior to 1054 varies, most were Orthodox, but some were certainly heretics (Honorius I springs to mind).

James
Protestant: "We don't have a priest. We don't need "priest" and certainly not an ordained one. The head of our Church is Christ. All believers are equal, and equlally priests. And that most certainly includes Eastern Orthodox Bishops and Lay people. As for Patriarchs since the time of Constantine, they are all heretics. The status of priests/presbyters varies prior to that. Most were christians, but some were certainly sacramental heretics."
 
Of course this is my view, but you get the point.

But, you appear to miss my point, which was that sedevacantist asked if the EP was our leader as though we necessarily must have one. It was the assumption that our ecclesiology must be like that of modern Rome that I wanted to point out as being wrong. Even you, however, must be able to see the difference between the Orthodox position and the Protestant one you attempted to parody it with. We are not throwing out Tradition as the Protestants do, we are refusing to add to it. As we are, you once were. But then you believe in 'development of doctrine'...

James
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: J Michael on March 26, 2013, 12:33:48 PM
Views on infallibility:

Orthodox Christians: The Church is infallible as it is the Bride of Christ with Christ as its head. This can be seen with the Seven Holy Ecumenical Councils and its Holy Canons.

Roman Catholics: Since 1870, the Pope of Rome has been declared to be supreme over all Christians and infallible whenever he issues a statement on faith or morals ex cathedral. Since the Pope is supreme even over the canons of the Seven Holy Ecumenical Councils, he can and has changed those Holy Canons. (See the New Code of Canon Law).

Protestants: The Bible is holy, infallible, and inerrant as it is the Word of God, so when the Bible is read, each Christian will interpret it with infallibility. Thus each Protestant is infallible, a priest, and a pope of his own family.


I really don't want to revisit the whole issue of papal infallibility--it's been beaten to death over and over and over again on this board--but for some reason many Orthodox seem to have the totally misguided notion that Christ is NOT the head of the (non-Orthodox) Catholic Church, His Bride.  He is.  Period.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: choy on March 26, 2013, 01:08:19 PM
Views on infallibility:

Orthodox Christians: The Church is infallible as it is the Bride of Christ with Christ as its head. This can be seen with the Seven Holy Ecumenical Councils and its Holy Canons.

My priest says that only Christ is infallible.  I guess it depends on how you would define Church here.  Some would argue that people in the Church would wound their communion with the Church if they commit error.  There is also the view that even Ecumenical Councils themselves are not infallible.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: choy on March 26, 2013, 01:12:26 PM
Protestant: "We don't have a priest. We don't need "priest" and certainly not an ordained one. The head of our Church is Christ. All believers are equal, and equlally priests. And that most certainly includes Eastern Orthodox Bishops and Lay people. As for Patriarchs since the time of Constantine, they are all heretics. The status of priests/presbyters varies prior to that. Most were christians, but some were certainly sacramental heretics."
 
Of course this is my view, but you get the point.

But it's not much different in Orthodoxy, we don't believe our bishops to know everything and always be right.  History shows a lot of heretical bishops, even Patriarchs (including Popes of Rome).  Surely they have their role in the Church and in our faith but certainly they can fall into error and we have the duty and obligation to correct them and even resist them if they persist in their error.  St. Maximos is one great example of a layman monk who resisted heretical bishops.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: orthonorm on March 26, 2013, 01:25:11 PM
Views on infallibility:

Orthodox Christians: The Church is infallible as it is the Bride of Christ with Christ as its head. This can be seen with the Seven Holy Ecumenical Councils and its Holy Canons.

Roman Catholics: Since 1870, the Pope of Rome has been declared to be supreme over all Christians and infallible whenever he issues a statement on faith or morals ex cathedral. Since the Pope is supreme even over the canons of the Seven Holy Ecumenical Councils, he can and has changed those Holy Canons. (See the New Code of Canon Law).

Protestants: The Bible is holy, infallible, and inerrant as it is the Word of God, so when the Bible is read, each Christian will interpret it with infallibility. Thus each Protestant is infallible, a priest, and a pope of his own family.


I really don't want to revisit the whole issue of papal infallibility--it's been beaten to death over and over and over again on this board--but for some reason many Orthodox seem to have the totally misguided notion that Christ is NOT the head of the (non-Orthodox) Catholic Church, His Bride.  He is.  Period.

Maria missed three pitches, not just one.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: J Michael on March 26, 2013, 01:27:10 PM
Views on infallibility:

Orthodox Christians: The Church is infallible as it is the Bride of Christ with Christ as its head. This can be seen with the Seven Holy Ecumenical Councils and its Holy Canons.

Roman Catholics: Since 1870, the Pope of Rome has been declared to be supreme over all Christians and infallible whenever he issues a statement on faith or morals ex cathedral. Since the Pope is supreme even over the canons of the Seven Holy Ecumenical Councils, he can and has changed those Holy Canons. (See the New Code of Canon Law).

Protestants: The Bible is holy, infallible, and inerrant as it is the Word of God, so when the Bible is read, each Christian will interpret it with infallibility. Thus each Protestant is infallible, a priest, and a pope of his own family.


I really don't want to revisit the whole issue of papal infallibility--it's been beaten to death over and over and over again on this board--but for some reason many Orthodox seem to have the totally misguided notion that Christ is NOT the head of the (non-Orthodox) Catholic Church, His Bride.  He is.  Period.

Maria missed three pitches, not just one.

Baseball can be a brutal game. ;D
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: choy on March 26, 2013, 02:41:03 PM
Views on infallibility:

Orthodox Christians: The Church is infallible as it is the Bride of Christ with Christ as its head. This can be seen with the Seven Holy Ecumenical Councils and its Holy Canons.

Roman Catholics: Since 1870, the Pope of Rome has been declared to be supreme over all Christians and infallible whenever he issues a statement on faith or morals ex cathedral. Since the Pope is supreme even over the canons of the Seven Holy Ecumenical Councils, he can and has changed those Holy Canons. (See the New Code of Canon Law).

Protestants: The Bible is holy, infallible, and inerrant as it is the Word of God, so when the Bible is read, each Christian will interpret it with infallibility. Thus each Protestant is infallible, a priest, and a pope of his own family.


I really don't want to revisit the whole issue of papal infallibility--it's been beaten to death over and over and over again on this board--but for some reason many Orthodox seem to have the totally misguided notion that Christ is NOT the head of the (non-Orthodox) Catholic Church, His Bride.  He is.  Period.

Of course the RCC believes that Christ is the head, but in absentia.  That is why a vicar is needed.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: orthonorm on March 26, 2013, 03:04:29 PM
Views on infallibility:

Orthodox Christians: The Church is infallible as it is the Bride of Christ with Christ as its head. This can be seen with the Seven Holy Ecumenical Councils and its Holy Canons.

Roman Catholics: Since 1870, the Pope of Rome has been declared to be supreme over all Christians and infallible whenever he issues a statement on faith or morals ex cathedral. Since the Pope is supreme even over the canons of the Seven Holy Ecumenical Councils, he can and has changed those Holy Canons. (See the New Code of Canon Law).

Protestants: The Bible is holy, infallible, and inerrant as it is the Word of God, so when the Bible is read, each Christian will interpret it with infallibility. Thus each Protestant is infallible, a priest, and a pope of his own family.


I really don't want to revisit the whole issue of papal infallibility--it's been beaten to death over and over and over again on this board--but for some reason many Orthodox seem to have the totally misguided notion that Christ is NOT the head of the (non-Orthodox) Catholic Church, His Bride.  He is.  Period.

Of course the RCC believes that Christ is the head, but in absentia.  That is why a vicar is needed.

And some are wondering why folks don't want to you speaking for anyone else.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: choy on March 26, 2013, 03:10:20 PM
And some are wondering why folks don't want to you speaking for anyone else.

You don't seem to have a problem with it.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: orthonorm on March 26, 2013, 03:15:42 PM
And some are wondering why folks don't want to you speaking for anyone else.

You don't seem to have a problem with it.

With you speaking for others? Not really, as you likely represent many ill informed people out there. I just wish you more interesting when you did it.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: choy on March 26, 2013, 03:18:06 PM
And some are wondering why folks don't want to you speaking for anyone else.

You don't seem to have a problem with it.

With you speaking for others? Not really, as you likely represent many ill informed people out there. I just wish you more interesting when you did it.

I mean with you speaking for others.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: choy on March 26, 2013, 03:20:20 PM
Anyway, going back on-topic, if my statement was wrong then why do Roman Catholics call the Pope the "visible head" and "the point of communion"?
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Apotheoun on March 26, 2013, 03:25:07 PM
Of course the RCC believes that Christ is the head, but in absentia.  That is why a vicar is needed.
Dzheremi has some great posts on the Western use of the word "vicar" at the Catholic Answers Forum. To read them do a search for a thread entitled "Is Orthodoxy the true Church?" I would post a link, but I do not know if that is permitted.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Apotheoun on March 26, 2013, 03:26:18 PM
And some are wondering why folks don't want to you speaking for anyone else.

You don't seem to have a problem with it.
Ignore the sniping of malcontents. I have enjoyed reading your posts. Please continue.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Apotheoun on March 26, 2013, 03:32:02 PM
Choy, I thought you might find the quotation below by Anglican author George Every (S.S.M.) interesting:


"[In the East] the primacy of Rome was seldom directly denied, in the sense of 'the primacy among her sisters, and the presidency in the first place of honor at General Councils,' but the Latin interpretation of the primacy in terms of jurisdiction revealed a difference between East and West in the doctrine of the Church. Attempts were made to relate this to the filioque, but these could not penetrate to the heart of the matter while the distinctive element in Latin theology was very little, if at all, understood in the East. St. Augustine was not translated into Greek before the fourteenth century. His De Civitate Dei and his anti-Donatist writings did much to determine the development of the Western doctrine of the Church, as his anti-Pelagian writings are the starting-point of all Western controversies on the nature of grace. Grace is the connecting link between theology (in the Byzantine sense of the doctrine of the Trinity) and ecclesiology, the doctrine of the Church. The Eastern Churches never had a doctrine of created grace, of the gifts of God apart from the gift of Himself to the baptized who are buried and risen with Christ and live and reign in the Holy Spirit. Therefore they could never understand the idea of the vicar of Christ ruling His Church in His absence. They thought of their bishops not in the first place as rulers, but as high-priests in the presence of Christ and the Spirit, witnesses to the truth, and stewards of the mysteries of God." [George Every, S.S.M., The Byzantine Patriarchate 451-1204, pages 191-192]
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: orthonorm on March 26, 2013, 03:36:17 PM
And some are wondering why folks don't want to you speaking for anyone else.

You don't seem to have a problem with it.

With you speaking for others? Not really, as you likely represent many ill informed people out there. I just wish you more interesting when you did it.

I mean with you speaking for others.

Link or it didn't happen. And it helps, when you are pretty much right all the time.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: orthonorm on March 26, 2013, 03:38:18 PM
And some are wondering why folks don't want to you speaking for anyone else.

You don't seem to have a problem with it.
Ignore the sniping of malcontents. I have enjoyed reading your posts. Please continue.

A person less than myself would call you to task for this.

*Actually, orthonorm is out sourcing all his posts here, so indeed someone else less than orthonorm is writing this, in case you were going to bring up the implication of accusation via negation.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Apotheoun on March 26, 2013, 03:39:59 PM
And some are I am wondering why folks don't want to you speaking for anyone else.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Apotheoun on March 26, 2013, 03:41:27 PM
And some are wondering why folks don't want to you speaking for anyone else.

You don't seem to have a problem with it.
Ignore the sniping of malcontents. I have enjoyed reading your posts. Please continue.

A person less than myself would call you to task for this.

*Actually, orthonorm is out sourcing all his posts here, so indeed someone else less than orthonorm is writing this, in case you were going to bring up the implication of accusation via negation.
Your problems with Choy are not the subject of this thread, and quite frankly I do not care what you (or the person you are outsourcing the creation of your posts to) think about him or his posts.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: orthonorm on March 26, 2013, 03:46:56 PM
And some are wondering why folks don't want to you speaking for anyone else.

You don't seem to have a problem with it.
Ignore the sniping of malcontents. I have enjoyed reading your posts. Please continue.

A person less than myself would call you to task for this.

*Actually, orthonorm is out sourcing all his posts here, so indeed someone else less than orthonorm is writing this, in case you were going to bring up the implication of accusation via negation.
Your problems with Choy are not the subject of this thread, and quite frankly I do not care what you (or the person you are outsourcing the creation of your posts to) think about him or his posts.

Just to point out and I am finished with you, there is nothing in my post you quoted about how I or whoever typed that thinks about choy or his posts.

It was referencing the comments of others.

Frankly, I couldn't tell you anything about choy that didn't occur prior to his obvious incorrect comment about the RCC's view on Papal infallibility a few posts back other than some posters don't care for how he characterizes other elements within the OC and without.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Apotheoun on March 26, 2013, 03:51:55 PM
Just to point out and I am finished with you, there is nothing in my post you quoted about how I or whoever typed that thinks about choy or his posts.

It was referencing the comments of others.

Frankly, I couldn't tell you anything about choy that didn't occur prior to his obvious incorrect comment about the RCC's view on Papal infallibility a few posts back other than some posters don't care for how he characterizes other elements within the OC and without.
I am glad you are done with me, and now maybe you can be done with Choy and stop telling him what he should or should not post, and that he should not speak for others, when you do that yourself.

If Choy is wrong (doctrinally) in one of his posts, then by all means show where he has made his error. But to simply snipe at him telling him to "stop talking for others" is pointless. He was a Roman Catholic and I am sure he knows some Roman Catholic doctrine. But if he is wrong about something (e.g., the nature of the word "vicar" and its usage in the Roman Church) prove him wrong and move on.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Pan Michał on March 26, 2013, 03:54:29 PM
Choy, sorry if I offended you, dude.

To be up with the thread - maybe someone would care to post some links to articles explaining the papal infallibility from the catholic point of view (interpretation of fragments of New Testament and reason as to why this way and not another, and so forth).
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: J Michael on March 26, 2013, 03:58:16 PM
Choy, sorry if I offended you, dude.

To be up with the thread - maybe someone would care to post some links to articles explaining the papal infallibility from the catholic point of view (interpretation of fragments of New Testament and reason as to why this way and not another, and so forth).

Maybe start a separate thread.  I'm guessing there's already been a zillion discussions/threads here about papal infallibility.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Papist on March 26, 2013, 04:15:13 PM
Views on infallibility:

Orthodox Christians: The Church is infallible as it is the Bride of Christ with Christ as its head. This can be seen with the Seven Holy Ecumenical Councils and its Holy Canons.

My priest says that only Christ is infallible.  I guess it depends on how you would define Church here.  Some would argue that people in the Church would wound their communion with the Church if they commit error.  There is also the view that even Ecumenical Councils themselves are not infallible.
Then how are they any different than a Protestant council? NOTE: I do NOT think EOs are Protestants.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Papist on March 26, 2013, 04:15:13 PM
Views on infallibility:

Orthodox Christians: The Church is infallible as it is the Bride of Christ with Christ as its head. This can be seen with the Seven Holy Ecumenical Councils and its Holy Canons.

Roman Catholics: Since 1870, the Pope of Rome has been declared to be supreme over all Christians and infallible whenever he issues a statement on faith or morals ex cathedral. Since the Pope is supreme even over the canons of the Seven Holy Ecumenical Councils, he can and has changed those Holy Canons. (See the New Code of Canon Law).

Protestants: The Bible is holy, infallible, and inerrant as it is the Word of God, so when the Bible is read, each Christian will interpret it with infallibility. Thus each Protestant is infallible, a priest, and a pope of his own family.


I really don't want to revisit the whole issue of papal infallibility--it's been beaten to death over and over and over again on this board--but for some reason many Orthodox seem to have the totally misguided notion that Christ is NOT the head of the (non-Orthodox) Catholic Church, His Bride.  He is.  Period.

Of course the RCC believes that Christ is the head, but in absentia.  That is why a vicar is needed.
Not absent. "I am with you always, even through the end of time." But just as each diocese has a visible pastor in the bishop, one who represents Christ, so too does the universal Catholic Church.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Papist on March 26, 2013, 04:15:13 PM
The Catholic Encyclopedia
, “Heresy,” 1914, Vol. 7, p. 261: “
The pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church.”
St. Robert Bellarmine, Cardinal and Doctor of the Church,


And that's why the Orthodox Church hasn't had a Roman Pope since 1054...
so you believe all the popes after 1054 are simply heretics? and the ones before 1054 were not heretics? who is your leader, this guy, if so do you agree with his stance on abortion?

His Holiness, Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople when he visited San Francisco in 1990 made the following statement on the Orthodox position on abortion-

Although the Orthodox Church believes the soul enters the body at conception and, generally speaking, respects human life and the continuation of the pregnancy,” Barthlomew said, the churchalso “respects the liberty and freedom of all human persons and all Christian couples . . . . We are not allowed to enter the bedrooms of the Christian couples,” he also said. “We cannot generalize. There are many reasons for a couple to go toward abortion.” (San Francisco Chronicle-7/20/90p.A22)

We don't have 'a leader'. We don't need 'a leader' and certainly not an infallible one. The head of the Church is Christ. All bishops are equal, and equally fallible. And that most certainly includes the Pope of Rome when he was still Orthodox just as it includes the Ecumenical Patriarch now. As for the Popes since 1054, they were all schismatics and/or heretics. The status of the Popes prior to 1054 varies, most were Orthodox, but some were certainly heretics (Honorius I springs to mind).

James
Protestant: "We don't have a priest. We don't need "priest" and certainly not an ordained one. The head of our Church is Christ. All believers are equal, and equlally priests. And that most certainly includes Eastern Orthodox Bishops and Lay people. As for Patriarchs since the time of Constantine, they are all heretics. The status of priests/presbyters varies prior to that. Most were christians, but some were certainly sacramental heretics."
 
Of course this is my view, but you get the point.

But, you appear to miss my point, which was that sedevacantist asked if the EP was our leader as though we necessarily must have one. It was the assumption that our ecclesiology must be like that of modern Rome that I wanted to point out as being wrong. Even you, however, must be able to see the difference between the Orthodox position and the Protestant one you attempted to parody it with. We are not throwing out Tradition as the Protestants do, we are refusing to add to it. As we are, you once were. But then you believe in 'development of doctrine'...

James
I'm going to ignore the bolded part because it's just not worth getting into. The point I am making is that it is silly to suggest that there cannot be a Pope simply because Christ is the head of the Church. When you guys make this argument it's just a bad argument, unless of course you want to throw out Patriarchs, Bishops, and Priest.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Papist on March 26, 2013, 04:15:13 PM
Anyway, going back on-topic, if my statement was wrong then why do Roman Catholics call the Pope the "visible head" and "the point of communion"?
In the same way that bishop can in a sense be called the "Visible Head" of the diocese. Both Bishops and the Pope are vicars of Christ, but in different ways.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Papist on March 26, 2013, 04:15:13 PM
Anyway, going back on-topic, if my statement was wrong then why do Roman Catholics call the Pope the "visible head" and "the point of communion"?
Is not communion with an Orthodox Bishop a necessary part of your faith? As is not a teaching that the entire catholic church is present in its fullness in the local parish? So is the Orthodox Bishop not a head of the Orthodox Church?
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: sedevacantist on March 26, 2013, 08:43:33 PM

So, I was talking with an RC coworker today, and he said that the Pope no longer claims infallibility.

He then asked me who our head hancho is, which gave me a great opportunity to give a short lesson in Orthodoxy. All bishops equal, first among equals and that Christ is at the Head of our Church.

so this guy was off his rocker?

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. (St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, (3,3,2), 180 A.D.)
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: sedevacantist on March 26, 2013, 08:46:22 PM
The Catholic Encyclopedia
, “Heresy,” 1914, Vol. 7, p. 261: “
The pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church.”
St. Robert Bellarmine, Cardinal and Doctor of the Church,


And that's why the Orthodox Church hasn't had a Roman Pope since 1054...
I'm trying to figure out what the orthodox believe as i get conflicting answers, before 1054 did you believe in the papacy, my belief was no. but here you are implying yes?
so you believe all the popes after 1054 are simply heretics? and the ones before 1054 were not heretics? who is your leader, this guy, if so do you agree with his stance on abortion?

His Holiness, Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople when he visited San Francisco in 1990 made the following statement on the Orthodox position on abortion-

Although the Orthodox Church believes the soul enters the body at conception and, generally speaking, respects human life and the continuation of the pregnancy,” Barthlomew said, the churchalso “respects the liberty and freedom of all human persons and all Christian couples . . . . We are not allowed to enter the bedrooms of the Christian couples,” he also said. “We cannot generalize. There are many reasons for a couple to go toward abortion.” (San Francisco Chronicle-7/20/90p.A22)

What is the difference between believing that all the popes after 1054 were heretics, and believing that all the popes after 1870, 1917, or 1959 were heretics?


You don't believe all the popes after 1054 are canonical Popes.

Exactly.


Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: sedevacantist on March 26, 2013, 08:48:13 PM
The Catholic Encyclopedia
, “Heresy,” 1914, Vol. 7, p. 261: “
The pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church.”
St. Robert Bellarmine, Cardinal and Doctor of the Church,


And that's why the Orthodox Church hasn't had a Roman Pope since 1054...
I'm trying to figure out what the orthodox believe as i get conflicting answers, before 1054 did you believe in the papacy, my belief was no. but here you are implying yes?
so you believe all the popes after 1054 are simply heretics? and the ones before 1054 were not heretics? who is your leader, this guy, if so do you agree with his stance on abortion?

His Holiness, Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople when he visited San Francisco in 1990 made the following statement on the Orthodox position on abortion-

Although the Orthodox Church believes the soul enters the body at conception and, generally speaking, respects human life and the continuation of the pregnancy,” Barthlomew said, the churchalso “respects the liberty and freedom of all human persons and all Christian couples . . . . We are not allowed to enter the bedrooms of the Christian couples,” he also said. “We cannot generalize. There are many reasons for a couple to go toward abortion.” (San Francisco Chronicle-7/20/90p.A22)

What is the difference between believing that all the popes after 1054 were heretics, and believing that all the popes after 1870, 1917, or 1959 were heretics?


You don't believe all the popes after 1054 are canonical Popes.

Exactly.


sorry, I wanted to clarify what the orthox believed prior to 1054, I thought you didn' tbelieve inthe papacy, but here aren't you implyingyou did?
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: choy on March 26, 2013, 08:51:19 PM
Anyway, going back on-topic, if my statement was wrong then why do Roman Catholics call the Pope the "visible head" and "the point of communion"?
Is not communion with an Orthodox Bishop a necessary part of your faith? As is not a teaching that the entire catholic church is present in its fullness in the local parish? So is the Orthodox Bishop not a head of the Orthodox Church?

No.  If there is one orthodox bishop left and everyone else falls into heresy, why does that orthodox bishop need to be in communion with a heretic to be orthodox?

Basically, the Orthodox Bishops are in communion because they are orthodox, not that they are orthodox because they are in communion with someone (whoever that is).
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: orthonorm on March 26, 2013, 08:55:34 PM
The Catholic Encyclopedia
, “Heresy,” 1914, Vol. 7, p. 261: “
The pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church.”
St. Robert Bellarmine, Cardinal and Doctor of the Church,


And that's why the Orthodox Church hasn't had a Roman Pope since 1054...
I'm trying to figure out what the orthodox believe as i get conflicting answers, before 1054 did you believe in the papacy, my belief was no. but here you are implying yes?
so you believe all the popes after 1054 are simply heretics? and the ones before 1054 were not heretics? who is your leader, this guy, if so do you agree with his stance on abortion?

His Holiness, Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople when he visited San Francisco in 1990 made the following statement on the Orthodox position on abortion-

Although the Orthodox Church believes the soul enters the body at conception and, generally speaking, respects human life and the continuation of the pregnancy,” Barthlomew said, the churchalso “respects the liberty and freedom of all human persons and all Christian couples . . . . We are not allowed to enter the bedrooms of the Christian couples,” he also said. “We cannot generalize. There are many reasons for a couple to go toward abortion.” (San Francisco Chronicle-7/20/90p.A22)

What is the difference between believing that all the popes after 1054 were heretics, and believing that all the popes after 1870, 1917, or 1959 were heretics?


You don't believe all the popes after 1054 are canonical Popes.

Exactly.


sorry, I wanted to clarify what the orthox believed prior to 1054, I thought you didn' tbelieve inthe papacy, but here aren't you implyingyou did?


Just when the formatting couldn't get worse?

How you do believe that Orthodox don't "believe" in papacy?

You might to check what that word means in a strict sense.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: PeterTheAleut on March 26, 2013, 09:59:24 PM

So, I was talking with an RC coworker today, and he said that the Pope no longer claims infallibility.

He then asked me who our head hancho is, which gave me a great opportunity to give a short lesson in Orthodoxy. All bishops equal, first among equals and that Christ is at the Head of our Church.

so this guy was off his rocker?

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. (St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, (3,3,2), 180 A.D.)
Yes, this passage from St. Irenaeus has been brought up and the Roman Catholic interpretation refuted more times than I care to remember on this forum. It's an old canard, a very old canard.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: orthros on March 26, 2013, 11:33:41 PM
PtA, are you using the word 'canard' to mean a false story?  Or a repeated story with an incorrect conclusion?

Either way, would you be willing to expound on this a little?  If it's false, on why it's false, and if the conclusion is wrong, a link or quick explanation of why as well(?)
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: PeterTheAleut on March 27, 2013, 01:06:04 AM
PtA, are you using the word 'canard' to mean a false story?  Or a repeated story with an incorrect conclusion?
In this case, both.

Either way, would you be willing to expound on this a little?  If it's false, on why it's false, and if the conclusion is wrong, a link or quick explanation of why as well(?)
Just follow the tag I added to this thread: "That Irenaeus quote". I really don't feel like repeating the work others have already done.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Papist on March 27, 2013, 01:54:35 AM

So, I was talking with an RC coworker today, and he said that the Pope no longer claims infallibility.

He then asked me who our head hancho is, which gave me a great opportunity to give a short lesson in Orthodoxy. All bishops equal, first among equals and that Christ is at the Head of our Church.

so this guy was off his rocker?

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. (St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, (3,3,2), 180 A.D.)
Yes, this passage from St. Irenaeus has been brought up and the Roman Catholic interpretation refuted more times than I care to remember on this forum. It's an old canard, a very old canard.
Yes, the linguistic acrobatics that some EO apologists perform in order to undermine the clear meaning of the text is well documented.  :D
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: jmbejdl on March 27, 2013, 04:39:14 AM
The Catholic Encyclopedia
, “Heresy,” 1914, Vol. 7, p. 261: “
The pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church.”
St. Robert Bellarmine, Cardinal and Doctor of the Church,


And that's why the Orthodox Church hasn't had a Roman Pope since 1054...
so you believe all the popes after 1054 are simply heretics? and the ones before 1054 were not heretics? who is your leader, this guy, if so do you agree with his stance on abortion?

His Holiness, Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople when he visited San Francisco in 1990 made the following statement on the Orthodox position on abortion-

Although the Orthodox Church believes the soul enters the body at conception and, generally speaking, respects human life and the continuation of the pregnancy,” Barthlomew said, the churchalso “respects the liberty and freedom of all human persons and all Christian couples . . . . We are not allowed to enter the bedrooms of the Christian couples,” he also said. “We cannot generalize. There are many reasons for a couple to go toward abortion.” (San Francisco Chronicle-7/20/90p.A22)

We don't have 'a leader'. We don't need 'a leader' and certainly not an infallible one. The head of the Church is Christ. All bishops are equal, and equally fallible. And that most certainly includes the Pope of Rome when he was still Orthodox just as it includes the Ecumenical Patriarch now. As for the Popes since 1054, they were all schismatics and/or heretics. The status of the Popes prior to 1054 varies, most were Orthodox, but some were certainly heretics (Honorius I springs to mind).

James
Protestant: "We don't have a priest. We don't need "priest" and certainly not an ordained one. The head of our Church is Christ. All believers are equal, and equlally priests. And that most certainly includes Eastern Orthodox Bishops and Lay people. As for Patriarchs since the time of Constantine, they are all heretics. The status of priests/presbyters varies prior to that. Most were christians, but some were certainly sacramental heretics."
 
Of course this is my view, but you get the point.

But, you appear to miss my point, which was that sedevacantist asked if the EP was our leader as though we necessarily must have one. It was the assumption that our ecclesiology must be like that of modern Rome that I wanted to point out as being wrong. Even you, however, must be able to see the difference between the Orthodox position and the Protestant one you attempted to parody it with. We are not throwing out Tradition as the Protestants do, we are refusing to add to it. As we are, you once were. But then you believe in 'development of doctrine'...

James
I'm going to ignore the bolded part because it's just not worth getting into. The point I am making is that it is silly to suggest that there cannot be a Pope simply because Christ is the head of the Church. When you guys make this argument it's just a bad argument, unless of course you want to throw out Patriarchs, Bishops, and Priest.

Fair enough, but I didn't make that argument. You read it into what I wrote, presumably because you expected to see it there. I fully appreciate that you believe Christ to be head of the Church, but you also have, to use sedevacantists words, 'a leader'. I was responding to his assumption that we, like Rome, must have a visible head of the Church on earth, not making the argument you assumed I was. We have no such 'leader' and nor do we need one - unlike sedevacantist who appears to be in the somewhat untenable position of needing one and yet finding that there isn't one to be had.

James
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: jmbejdl on March 27, 2013, 04:44:24 AM

So, I was talking with an RC coworker today, and he said that the Pope no longer claims infallibility.

He then asked me who our head hancho is, which gave me a great opportunity to give a short lesson in Orthodoxy. All bishops equal, first among equals and that Christ is at the Head of our Church.

so this guy was off his rocker?

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. (St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, (3,3,2), 180 A.D.)
Yes, this passage from St. Irenaeus has been brought up and the Roman Catholic interpretation refuted more times than I care to remember on this forum. It's an old canard, a very old canard.
Yes, the linguistic acrobatics that some EO apologists perform in order to undermine the clear meaning of the text is well documented.  :D

As opposed to the convenient inability to see such phrases as inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously that RC apologists repeatedly demonstrate? Honestly, seeing the papacy in the Fathers or the history of the early Church has always seemed somewhat akin to finding faces in the flames to me - you see what you want to see but it doesn't mean it's there.

James
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Shiny on March 27, 2013, 04:49:35 AM

So, I was talking with an RC coworker today, and he said that the Pope no longer claims infallibility.

He then asked me who our head hancho is, which gave me a great opportunity to give a short lesson in Orthodoxy. All bishops equal, first among equals and that Christ is at the Head of our Church.

so this guy was off his rocker?

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. (St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, (3,3,2), 180 A.D.)
Yes, this passage from St. Irenaeus has been brought up and the Roman Catholic interpretation refuted more times than I care to remember on this forum. It's an old canard, a very old canard.
Yes, the linguistic acrobatics that some EO apologists perform in order to undermine the clear meaning of the text is well documented.  :D
I'm just curious, that isn't the only text you rely on right?
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Cyrillic on March 27, 2013, 06:18:40 AM
The original text of St. Irenaeus' against heresies isn't even preserved. The only thing we have is a Latin translation. Not at all reliable, if you ask me.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: PeterTheAleut on March 27, 2013, 10:36:26 AM

So, I was talking with an RC coworker today, and he said that the Pope no longer claims infallibility.

He then asked me who our head hancho is, which gave me a great opportunity to give a short lesson in Orthodoxy. All bishops equal, first among equals and that Christ is at the Head of our Church.

so this guy was off his rocker?

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. (St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, (3,3,2), 180 A.D.)
Yes, this passage from St. Irenaeus has been brought up and the Roman Catholic interpretation refuted more times than I care to remember on this forum. It's an old canard, a very old canard.
Yes, the linguistic acrobatics that some EO apologists perform in order to undermine the clear meaning of the text is well documented.  :D
Yes, the linguistic acrobatics that some RC apologists perform in order to read into the text meaning that ain't there is well documented, too. :laugh:
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Papist on March 27, 2013, 10:40:53 AM

So, I was talking with an RC coworker today, and he said that the Pope no longer claims infallibility.

He then asked me who our head hancho is, which gave me a great opportunity to give a short lesson in Orthodoxy. All bishops equal, first among equals and that Christ is at the Head of our Church.

so this guy was off his rocker?

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. (St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, (3,3,2), 180 A.D.)
Yes, this passage from St. Irenaeus has been brought up and the Roman Catholic interpretation refuted more times than I care to remember on this forum. It's an old canard, a very old canard.
Yes, the linguistic acrobatics that some EO apologists perform in order to undermine the clear meaning of the text is well documented.  :D
I'm just curious, that isn't the only text you rely on right?
No, there are quite a few others.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Papist on March 27, 2013, 10:54:31 AM

So, I was talking with an RC coworker today, and he said that the Pope no longer claims infallibility.

He then asked me who our head hancho is, which gave me a great opportunity to give a short lesson in Orthodoxy. All bishops equal, first among equals and that Christ is at the Head of our Church.

so this guy was off his rocker?

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. (St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, (3,3,2), 180 A.D.)
Yes, this passage from St. Irenaeus has been brought up and the Roman Catholic interpretation refuted more times than I care to remember on this forum. It's an old canard, a very old canard.
Yes, the linguistic acrobatics that some EO apologists perform in order to undermine the clear meaning of the text is well documented.  :D

As opposed to the convenient inability to see such phrases as inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously that RC apologists repeatedly demonstrate? Honestly, seeing the papacy in the Fathers or the history of the early Church has always seemed somewhat akin to finding faces in the flames to me - you see what you want to see but it doesn't mean it's there.

James
"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]).

The translations that I have read do not say "In as much as." It just say that Rome has preserved tradition. The reason for giving assent to the teachings of Rome are not the preservation of tradition but Rome's "superior origin"/"Preeminent authority". Now I have seen it translated both ways: superior origin and preeminent authority. In either case, the passage does not make it dependent on a conditional of having preserved tradition, but not something essential to the Church of Rome (her origin/authority). However, given that St. Iranaeus has just fninished descirbing the orgin of the Bishopric in Rome, the translation "superior origin" seems to make a great deal of sense. Though, given that the Greek text is no longer available, I would like to read the Latin texst.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: orthonorm on March 27, 2013, 01:45:48 PM
Views on infallibility:

Orthodox Christians: The Church is infallible as it is the Bride of Christ with Christ as its head. This can be seen with the Seven Holy Ecumenical Councils and its Holy Canons.

Roman Catholics: Since 1870, the Pope of Rome has been declared to be supreme over all Christians and infallible whenever he issues a statement on faith or morals ex cathedral. Since the Pope is supreme even over the canons of the Seven Holy Ecumenical Councils, he can and has changed those Holy Canons. (See the New Code of Canon Law).

Protestants: The Bible is holy, infallible, and inerrant as it is the Word of God, so when the Bible is read, each Christian will interpret it with infallibility. Thus each Protestant is infallible, a priest, and a pope of his own family.


I really don't want to revisit the whole issue of papal infallibility--it's been beaten to death over and over and over again on this board--but for some reason many Orthodox seem to have the totally misguided notion that Christ is NOT the head of the (non-Orthodox) Catholic Church, His Bride.  He is.  Period.

Of course the RCC believes that Christ is the head, but in absentia.  That is why a vicar is needed.
Not absent. "I am with you always, even through the end of time." But just as each diocese has a visible pastor in the bishop, one who represents Christ, so too does the universal Catholic Church.

I've been thinking about this. Is there anyway you can twist the etymology of vicar to suggest that it doesn't mean to stand in for.

I think it is an unhappy word to use.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Papist on March 27, 2013, 01:58:14 PM
Views on infallibility:

Orthodox Christians: The Church is infallible as it is the Bride of Christ with Christ as its head. This can be seen with the Seven Holy Ecumenical Councils and its Holy Canons.

Roman Catholics: Since 1870, the Pope of Rome has been declared to be supreme over all Christians and infallible whenever he issues a statement on faith or morals ex cathedral. Since the Pope is supreme even over the canons of the Seven Holy Ecumenical Councils, he can and has changed those Holy Canons. (See the New Code of Canon Law).

Protestants: The Bible is holy, infallible, and inerrant as it is the Word of God, so when the Bible is read, each Christian will interpret it with infallibility. Thus each Protestant is infallible, a priest, and a pope of his own family.


I really don't want to revisit the whole issue of papal infallibility--it's been beaten to death over and over and over again on this board--but for some reason many Orthodox seem to have the totally misguided notion that Christ is NOT the head of the (non-Orthodox) Catholic Church, His Bride.  He is.  Period.

Of course the RCC believes that Christ is the head, but in absentia.  That is why a vicar is needed.
Not absent. "I am with you always, even through the end of time." But just as each diocese has a visible pastor in the bishop, one who represents Christ, so too does the universal Catholic Church.

I've been thinking about this. Is there anyway you can twist the etymology of vicar to suggest that it doesn't mean to stand in for.

I think it is an unhappy word to use.
Perhaps it is an unhappy word use and we should shoot for another. One might say that the pope is a stand in for Christ's visible presence.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Cyrillic on March 27, 2013, 02:23:38 PM
Though, given that the Greek text is no longer available, I would like to read the Latin texst.

Here. (http://books.google.nl/books?id=pL7UAAAAMAAJ&hl=nl&pg=PA333#v=onepage&q&f=false) The relevant part starts at paragraph 2 of caput III and continues on the next page.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Papist on March 27, 2013, 02:59:23 PM
Though, given that the Greek text is no longer available, I would like to read the Latin texst.

Here. (http://books.google.nl/books?id=pL7UAAAAMAAJ&hl=nl&pg=PA333#v=onepage&q&f=false) The relevant part starts at paragraph 2 of caput III and continues on the next page.
Thanks. My latin is pretty wee so it may take a while for me to read through the relevant passages.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Peter J on March 27, 2013, 03:36:51 PM
Thanks. My latin is pretty wee so it may take a while for me to read through the relevant passages.

Not to stereotype or anything, but Scots aren't known for their Latin.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: TheTrisagion on March 27, 2013, 03:52:14 PM
Thanks. My latin is pretty wee so it may take a while for me to read through the relevant passages.

Not to stereotype or anything, but Scots aren't known for their Latin.

*In my best Uncle Argyle imitation*

Well, that is something we shall have to remedy, now isn't it?

(Braveheart reference)
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Papist on March 27, 2013, 05:43:48 PM
Thanks. My latin is pretty wee so it may take a while for me to read through the relevant passages.

Not to stereotype or anything, but Scots aren't known for their Latin.
Who's a scot?
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: choy on March 27, 2013, 08:31:24 PM
Choy, I thought you might find the quotation below by Anglican author George Every (S.S.M.) interesting:


"[In the East] the primacy of Rome was seldom directly denied, in the sense of 'the primacy among her sisters, and the presidency in the first place of honor at General Councils,' but the Latin interpretation of the primacy in terms of jurisdiction revealed a difference between East and West in the doctrine of the Church. Attempts were made to relate this to the filioque, but these could not penetrate to the heart of the matter while the distinctive element in Latin theology was very little, if at all, understood in the East. St. Augustine was not translated into Greek before the fourteenth century. His De Civitate Dei and his anti-Donatist writings did much to determine the development of the Western doctrine of the Church, as his anti-Pelagian writings are the starting-point of all Western controversies on the nature of grace. Grace is the connecting link between theology (in the Byzantine sense of the doctrine of the Trinity) and ecclesiology, the doctrine of the Church. The Eastern Churches never had a doctrine of created grace, of the gifts of God apart from the gift of Himself to the baptized who are buried and risen with Christ and live and reign in the Holy Spirit. Therefore they could never understand the idea of the vicar of Christ ruling His Church in His absence. They thought of their bishops not in the first place as rulers, but as high-priests in the presence of Christ and the Spirit, witnesses to the truth, and stewards of the mysteries of God." [George Every, S.S.M., The Byzantine Patriarchate 451-1204, pages 191-192]

As some would say, the Orthodox do not have a problem with the primacy of the Pope of Rome.  The issue really with Rome is what "primacy" means.  This is why even casual conversations between Catholics and Orthodox do not go well on this matter.  Yes, there are many sources of people in Church history that can be quoted as upholding the primacy of Rome.  But when both sides hear that word, each side has a different idea.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: choy on March 27, 2013, 08:36:34 PM
Perhaps it is an unhappy word use and we should shoot for another. One might say that the pope is a stand in for Christ's visible presence.

Still flawed.  Does this make the Pope merely a puppet and Christ pulls his strings to do what He wants?

If Christ intended St. Peter to be the infallible supreme ruler of the Church in his stead, why did he choose 12 Apostles?  Why not just St. Peter and train him well then let him select his own "bishops" who are under him.  Obviously in our iconographic tradition we do see equal value to those called by Christ personally to be the Apostles, which is why St. Matthias normally doesn't appear in depictions of the 12 and is instead replaced by St. Paul, because St. Paul was personally called by Christ while St. Matthias was elevated to the office of Judas by the 11.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Papist on March 27, 2013, 08:51:43 PM
Perhaps it is an unhappy word use and we should shoot for another. One might say that the pope is a stand in for Christ's visible presence.

Still flawed.  Does this make the Pope merely a puppet and Christ pulls his strings to do what He wants?

If Christ intended St. Peter to be the infallible supreme ruler of the Church in his stead, why did he choose 12 Apostles?  Why not just St. Peter and train him well then let him select his own "bishops" who are under him.  Obviously in our iconographic tradition we do see equal value to those called by Christ personally to be the Apostles, which is why St. Matthias normally doesn't appear in depictions of the 12 and is instead replaced by St. Paul, because St. Paul was personally called by Christ while St. Matthias was elevated to the office of Judas by the 11.
You are grasping at straws. The Eastern Orthodox have much more formiddable arguments than this. Come now, you can do better.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: sedevacantist on March 27, 2013, 09:53:15 PM

So, I was talking with an RC coworker today, and he said that the Pope no longer claims infallibility.

He then asked me who our head hancho is, which gave me a great opportunity to give a short lesson in Orthodoxy. All bishops equal, first among equals and that Christ is at the Head of our Church.

so this guy was off his rocker?

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. (St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, (3,3,2), 180 A.D.)
Yes, this passage from St. Irenaeus has been brought up and the Roman Catholic interpretation refuted more times than I care to remember on this forum. It's an old canard, a very old canard.
refuted is a term you use loosly, I don't need the church fathers to prove the papacy, I have the bible , try as you may you can't refute the fact that Jesus gives only  Peter the keys to the kingdom, tells Peter he is the rock, and tells Peter to rule His sheep in John 21...I've read the attempts to refute this on this forum and they all failed miserably
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Maria on March 27, 2013, 10:05:12 PM

So, I was talking with an RC coworker today, and he said that the Pope no longer claims infallibility.

He then asked me who our head hancho is, which gave me a great opportunity to give a short lesson in Orthodoxy. All bishops equal, first among equals and that Christ is at the Head of our Church.

so this guy was off his rocker?

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. (St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, (3,3,2), 180 A.D.)
Yes, this passage from St. Irenaeus has been brought up and the Roman Catholic interpretation refuted more times than I care to remember on this forum. It's an old canard, a very old canard.
refuted is a term you use loosly, I don't need the church fathers to prove the papacy, I have the bible , try as you may you can't refute the fact that Jesus gives only  Peter the keys to the kingdom, tells Peter he is the rock, and tells Peter to rule His sheep in John 21...I've read the attempts to refute this on this forum and they all failed miserably

Yes, and Scott Butler, the author of Jesus, Peter, and the Keys, also told me the same until he was red in the face.

The 12 Apostles governed the Early Church in a conciliar fashion. Peter was never called "Pope" or even "Bishop of Rome" in the Bible. The Apostle Paul never addressed Peter as "His Holiness," but challenged Peter to his face.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: sedevacantist on March 27, 2013, 11:11:30 PM

So, I was talking with an RC coworker today, and he said that the Pope no longer claims infallibility.

He then asked me who our head hancho is, which gave me a great opportunity to give a short lesson in Orthodoxy. All bishops equal, first among equals and that Christ is at the Head of our Church.

so this guy was off his rocker?

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. (St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, (3,3,2), 180 A.D.)
Yes, this passage from St. Irenaeus has been brought up and the Roman Catholic interpretation refuted more times than I care to remember on this forum. It's an old canard, a very old canard.
refuted is a term you use loosly, I don't need the church fathers to prove the papacy, I have the bible , try as you may you can't refute the fact that Jesus gives only  Peter the keys to the kingdom, tells Peter he is the rock, and tells Peter to rule His sheep in John 21...I've read the attempts to refute this on this forum and they all failed miserably

Yes, and Scott Butler, the author of Jesus, Peter, and the Keys, also told me the same until he was red in the face.

The 12 Apostles governed the Early Church in a conciliar fashion. Peter was never called "Pope" or even "Bishop of Rome" in the Bible. The Apostle Paul never addressed Peter as "His Holiness," but challenged Peter to his face.
I don't know any butler, to discount all the biblical passages that clearly set Peter apart from the others because Paul did confront Peter concerning the circumcision issue is ridiculous

In Acts 15,we read about the dissension concerning circumcision. Some were teaching that all gentile converts to the Gospel had to undergo circumcision to be saved. After much disputing,Paul and Barnabas went to the Apostles at Jerusalem to consult about this question. The leaders of the Church held a council to discuss the issue. This council is sometimes called the first ecumenical council of the Christian Church.


Acts15:7-“And when there had been much disputing,Peter rose up,and said unto them,Men and brethren,ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us,that the Gentiles by mouth should hear the word of the gospel,and believe.”

After much disputing,St Peter rises up and delivers the first address to silence the argument and give the decision. That’s because he was the leader of the Church,the first pope. The Bible makes special  mention of the fact that when Peter spoke and gave his decision,the multitude kept silence:

Acts 15:12 “Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul…”

St James spoke after paul and Barnabas, for , as early Church historian Eusebius tells us,St James was left to be Bishop over the local church at Jerusalem.

Paul spends fifteen days with Peter privately before beginning his ministry, even after Christ's Revelation to Paul.

Galatians18  Then, after three years, I went to Jerusalem, to see Peter, and I tarried with him fifteen days.


 1 Peter 5:1 - Peter acts as the chief bishop by "exhorting" all the other bishops and elders of the Church.

The ancients therefore that are among you, I beseech, who am myself also an ancient, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ: as also a partaker of that glory which is to be revealed in time to come:
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: jmbejdl on March 28, 2013, 05:12:54 AM

So, I was talking with an RC coworker today, and he said that the Pope no longer claims infallibility.

He then asked me who our head hancho is, which gave me a great opportunity to give a short lesson in Orthodoxy. All bishops equal, first among equals and that Christ is at the Head of our Church.

so this guy was off his rocker?

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. (St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, (3,3,2), 180 A.D.)
Yes, this passage from St. Irenaeus has been brought up and the Roman Catholic interpretation refuted more times than I care to remember on this forum. It's an old canard, a very old canard.
refuted is a term you use loosly, I don't need the church fathers to prove the papacy, I have the bible , try as you may you can't refute the fact that Jesus gives only  Peter the keys to the kingdom, tells Peter he is the rock, and tells Peter to rule His sheep in John 21...I've read the attempts to refute this on this forum and they all failed miserably

Even if, for the sakes of argument, I were to agree with your interpretation of Scripture (I don't, but we'll put that aside for now), you still would have to explain how you get from St. Peter as monarch of the Church to the Pope of Rome in that role. Why not the Patriarch of Antioch, who would certainly seem to have prior claim? Why not the Patriarch of Alexandria? Nowhere in Scripture does it say that the Pope of Rome is the successor to St. Peter and one of the Popes of Rome (St. Gregory the Great) clearly describes the all three Patriarchates (Rome, Antioch and Alexandria) as the See of St. Peter.

I keep seeing you claiming to have refuted Orthodox arguments, but all I actually see is bluster. Your 'arguments' seem to consist of you sticking both fingers in your ears and declaring that nobody can refute you. Thankfully not all the Catholics here are so poor at presenting their case.

James
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Cyrillic on March 28, 2013, 05:47:19 AM
Though, given that the Greek text is no longer available, I would like to read the Latin texst.

Here. (http://books.google.nl/books?id=pL7UAAAAMAAJ&hl=nl&pg=PA333#v=onepage&q&f=false) The relevant part starts at paragraph 2 of caput III and continues on the next page.
Thanks. My latin is pretty wee so it may take a while for me to read through the relevant passages.

A Traditionalist Catholic who isn't good at Latin? Is outrage!
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Cyrillic on March 28, 2013, 05:49:30 AM
Peter was never called "Pope" or even "Bishop of Rome" in the Bible.

This argument is unimpressive.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Cyrillic on March 28, 2013, 05:52:24 AM

You are grasping at straws. The Eastern Orthodox have much more formiddable arguments than this. Come now, you can do better.

Same with Roman Catholics. There are some really good arguments out there for the Papay but internet apologists usually don't come much further than copypasting patristic florilegia filled with quotes which are completely taken out of context (as sedevacantist is doing) or shouting "anticonception". Disappointing, but internet debates will be internet debates.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: VarangianGuard on March 28, 2013, 09:14:59 AM
Views on infallibility:

Orthodox Christians: The Church is infallible as it is the Bride of Christ with Christ as its head. This can be seen with the Seven Holy Ecumenical Councils and its Holy Canons.

Roman Catholics: Since 1870, the Pope of Rome has been declared to be supreme over all Christians and infallible whenever he issues a statement on faith or morals ex cathedral. Since the Pope is supreme even over the canons of the Seven Holy Ecumenical Councils, he can and has changed those Holy Canons. (See the New Code of Canon Law).

Protestants: The Bible is holy, infallible, and inerrant as it is the Word of God, so when the Bible is read, each Christian will interpret it with infallibility. Thus each Protestant is infallible, a priest, and a pope of his own family.


Question to alternative A:
- Is it  the Councils themselves who are deemed infallible or is it when the council decrees have been received by the Church, i.e when "integrated" in the mind of the Church?
When listening to Clark Carlton's podcasts, he puts the emphasis on the latter alternative. That seems reasonable, considering the consensus criterion.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: J Michael on March 28, 2013, 09:26:03 AM
Thanks. My latin is pretty wee so it may take a while for me to read through the relevant passages.

Not to stereotype or anything, but Scots aren't known for their Latin.
Who's a scot?

Aren't all hispanics/latinos originally from Scotland? ;D ;D
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: J Michael on March 28, 2013, 09:30:10 AM
Though, given that the Greek text is no longer available, I would like to read the Latin texst.

Here. (http://books.google.nl/books?id=pL7UAAAAMAAJ&hl=nl&pg=PA333#v=onepage&q&f=false) The relevant part starts at paragraph 2 of caput III and continues on the next page.
Thanks. My latin is pretty wee so it may take a while for me to read through the relevant passages.

A Traditionalist Catholic who isn't good at Latin? Is outrage!

Maybe there's a Gaelic translation  :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:!
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: choy on March 28, 2013, 10:11:32 AM
Though, given that the Greek text is no longer available, I would like to read the Latin texst.

Here. (http://books.google.nl/books?id=pL7UAAAAMAAJ&hl=nl&pg=PA333#v=onepage&q&f=false) The relevant part starts at paragraph 2 of caput III and continues on the next page.
Thanks. My latin is pretty wee so it may take a while for me to read through the relevant passages.

A Traditionalist Catholic who isn't good at Latin? Is outrage!

Some of those who go to TLM are just hipsters.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: mike on March 28, 2013, 10:37:14 AM
is it when the council decrees have been received by the Church, i.e when "integrated" in the mind of the Church?

This.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Papist on March 28, 2013, 10:56:17 AM
Though, given that the Greek text is no longer available, I would like to read the Latin texst.

Here. (http://books.google.nl/books?id=pL7UAAAAMAAJ&hl=nl&pg=PA333#v=onepage&q&f=false) The relevant part starts at paragraph 2 of caput III and continues on the next page.
Thanks. My latin is pretty wee so it may take a while for me to read through the relevant passages.

A Traditionalist Catholic who isn't good at Latin? Is outrage!
Aslo a hispanic from New Mexico who is not fluent in Spanish!
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: J Michael on March 28, 2013, 11:10:25 AM
Though, given that the Greek text is no longer available, I would like to read the Latin texst.

Here. (http://books.google.nl/books?id=pL7UAAAAMAAJ&hl=nl&pg=PA333#v=onepage&q&f=false) The relevant part starts at paragraph 2 of caput III and continues on the next page.
Thanks. My latin is pretty wee so it may take a while for me to read through the relevant passages.

A Traditionalist Catholic who isn't good at Latin? Is outrage!
Aslo a hispanic from New Mexico who is not fluent in Spanish!

Bad, bad, BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD Boy!!!! ;D
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: VarangianGuard on March 28, 2013, 11:21:54 AM
Though, given that the Greek text is no longer available, I would like to read the Latin texst.

Here. (http://books.google.nl/books?id=pL7UAAAAMAAJ&hl=nl&pg=PA333#v=onepage&q&f=false) The relevant part starts at paragraph 2 of caput III and continues on the next page.
Thanks. My latin is pretty wee so it may take a while for me to read through the relevant passages.

A Traditionalist Catholic who isn't good at Latin? Is outrage!

Some of those who go to TLM are just hipsters.
And  some of those who attend the Novus Ordo are just pedophiles. Sounds like calumny, doesn't it, even though it statistically is a factual statement, just like yours?
Why the  smearing of people who at least are searching for some kind of tradition? From your point of view that search should be laudable, since you yourself obviously have searched and found tradition.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Papist on March 28, 2013, 12:39:46 PM
Though, given that the Greek text is no longer available, I would like to read the Latin texst.

Here. (http://books.google.nl/books?id=pL7UAAAAMAAJ&hl=nl&pg=PA333#v=onepage&q&f=false) The relevant part starts at paragraph 2 of caput III and continues on the next page.
Thanks. My latin is pretty wee so it may take a while for me to read through the relevant passages.

A Traditionalist Catholic who isn't good at Latin? Is outrage!

Some of those who go to TLM are just hipsters.
Meh, I've been called worse on this forum.  ;D
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: choy on March 28, 2013, 01:02:40 PM
Meh, I've been called worse on this forum.  ;D

I'm not talking about you.  But it is true a lot of people just follow it as a trend.  I mean, the same thing happens to Eastern Catholicism.  When people discover it they love it because it is a new thing to them.  How many of them actually stay there?  How many of them actually live the traditions of an Eastern Catholic?

I'm not discounting genuine traditionalists like yourself.  That is why I said "some".  But some people just attends one TLM then starts posting Latin on their FB page.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Peter J on March 28, 2013, 01:37:11 PM
Thanks. My latin is pretty wee so it may take a while for me to read through the relevant passages.

Not to stereotype or anything, but Scots aren't known for their Latin.
Who's a scot?

(emphasis added)
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Maria on March 28, 2013, 05:41:47 PM
is it when the council decrees have been received by the Church, i.e when "integrated" in the mind of the Church?

This.

Exactly.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Papist on March 28, 2013, 06:40:54 PM
Thanks. My latin is pretty wee so it may take a while for me to read through the relevant passages.

Not to stereotype or anything, but Scots aren't known for their Latin.
Who's a scot?

(emphasis added)
LOL. I get it now. <palm to forhead> I meant to say, "My latin is pretty week."
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: James2 on March 28, 2013, 08:52:55 PM
Thanks. My latin is pretty wee so it may take a while for me to read through the relevant passages.

Not to stereotype or anything, but Scots aren't known for their Latin.
Who's a scot?

(emphasis added)
LOL. I get it now. <palm to forhead> I meant to say, "My latin is pretty week."

Mine is pretty month.   ;)
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Maria on March 28, 2013, 08:59:51 PM
Thanks. My latin is pretty wee so it may take a while for me to read through the relevant passages.

Not to stereotype or anything, but Scots aren't known for their Latin.
Who's a scot?

(emphasis added)
LOL. I get it now. <palm to forhead> I meant to say, "My latin is pretty week."

Mine is pretty month.   ;)

And this little piggy, went "wee, wee, wee" all the way home.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: sedevacantist on March 28, 2013, 10:50:09 PM

You are grasping at straws. The Eastern Orthodox have much more formiddable arguments than this. Come now, you can do better.

Same with Roman Catholics. There are some really good arguments out there for the Papay but internet apologists usually don't come much further than copypasting patristic florilegia filled with quotes which are completely taken out of context (as sedevacantist is doing) or shouting "anticonception". Disappointing, but internet debates will be internet debates.
if I take a quote out of context it's your job to prove it, just by saying I take a quote out of context doesn't make it so..sorry...and if there are other good arguements for the papacy which I'm sure there are as I never stated these are the only arguments ..why don't you point them out
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: sedevacantist on March 28, 2013, 11:12:36 PM

So, I was talking with an RC coworker today, and he said that the Pope no longer claims infallibility.

He then asked me who our head hancho is, which gave me a great opportunity to give a short lesson in Orthodoxy. All bishops equal, first among equals and that Christ is at the Head of our Church.

so this guy was off his rocker?

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. (St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, (3,3,2), 180 A.D.)
Yes, this passage from St. Irenaeus has been brought up and the Roman Catholic interpretation refuted more times than I care to remember on this forum. It's an old canard, a very old canard.
refuted is a term you use loosly, I don't need the church fathers to prove the papacy, I have the bible , try as you may you can't refute the fact that Jesus gives only  Peter the keys to the kingdom, tells Peter he is the rock, and tells Peter to rule His sheep in John 21...I've read the attempts to refute this on this forum and they all failed miserably

Even if, for the sakes of argument, I were to agree with your interpretation of Scripture (I don't, but we'll put that aside for now), you still would have to explain how you get from St. Peter as monarch of the Church to the Pope of Rome in that role. Why not the Patriarch of Antioch, who would certainly seem to have prior claim? Why not the Patriarch of Alexandria? Nowhere in Scripture does it say that the Pope of Rome is the successor to St. Peter and one of the Popes of Rome (St. Gregory the Great) clearly describes the all three Patriarchates (Rome, Antioch and Alexandria) as the See of St. Peter.

I keep seeing you claiming to have refuted Orthodox arguments, but all I actually see is bluster. Your 'arguments' seem to consist of you sticking both fingers in your ears and declaring that nobody can refute you. Thankfully not all the Catholics here are so poor at presenting their case.

James
where did St Peter die


When Pope Victor I (189-198) chose to excommunicate the Asian churches from the universal church and Rome for following their own tradition concerning the appropriate day to celebrate the Resurrection, a number of bishops were critical of him, but none challenged his authority to do so. St. Irenaeus urged him not “to cut off whole churches” and he relented, though he had called synods to consider the problem on his own authority. St. Irenaeus, writing his famous “Against Heresies” after 180 A.D. noted, It is possible, then, for everyone in every Church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the Apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the Apostles, and their successors to our own times . . . . The blessed Apostles [Peter and Paul] having founded and built up the Church [of Rome] handed over the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the epistle to Timothy [2 Tim 4:21] To him succeeded Anencletus; and after him in the third place, from the Apostles, Clement." These men were the first three popes.

Opatatus:
In the city of Rome the Episcopal chair was given first to Peter, the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head – that is why he is also called Cephas [Rock] – of all the Apostles, the one chair is which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the Apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would presume to set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner…Recall then the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church. (Opatatus, The Schism of the Donatists, 2:2, 367 A.D.)
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: SolEX01 on March 28, 2013, 11:21:31 PM

So, I was talking with an RC coworker today, and he said that the Pope no longer claims infallibility.

He then asked me who our head hancho is, which gave me a great opportunity to give a short lesson in Orthodoxy. All bishops equal, first among equals and that Christ is at the Head of our Church.

so this guy was off his rocker?

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. (St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, (3,3,2), 180 A.D.)
Yes, this passage from St. Irenaeus has been brought up and the Roman Catholic interpretation refuted more times than I care to remember on this forum. It's an old canard, a very old canard.
refuted is a term you use loosly, I don't need the church fathers to prove the papacy, I have the bible , try as you may you can't refute the fact that Jesus gives only  Peter the keys to the kingdom, tells Peter he is the rock, and tells Peter to rule His sheep in John 21...I've read the attempts to refute this on this forum and they all failed miserably

Even if, for the sakes of argument, I were to agree with your interpretation of Scripture (I don't, but we'll put that aside for now), you still would have to explain how you get from St. Peter as monarch of the Church to the Pope of Rome in that role. Why not the Patriarch of Antioch, who would certainly seem to have prior claim? Why not the Patriarch of Alexandria? Nowhere in Scripture does it say that the Pope of Rome is the successor to St. Peter and one of the Popes of Rome (St. Gregory the Great) clearly describes the all three Patriarchates (Rome, Antioch and Alexandria) as the See of St. Peter.

I keep seeing you claiming to have refuted Orthodox arguments, but all I actually see is bluster. Your 'arguments' seem to consist of you sticking both fingers in your ears and declaring that nobody can refute you. Thankfully not all the Catholics here are so poor at presenting their case.

James
where did St Peter die


When Pope Victor I (189-198) chose to excommunicate the Asian churches from the universal church and Rome for following their own tradition concerning the appropriate day to celebrate the Resurrection, a number of bishops were critical of him, but none challenged his authority to do so. St. Irenaeus urged him not “to cut off whole churches” and he relented, though he had called synods to consider the problem on his own authority. St. Irenaeus, writing his famous “Against Heresies” after 180 A.D. noted, It is possible, then, for everyone in every Church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the Apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the Apostles, and their successors to our own times . . . . The blessed Apostles [Peter and Paul] having founded and built up the Church [of Rome] handed over the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the epistle to Timothy [2 Tim 4:21] To him succeeded Anencletus; and after him in the third place, from the Apostles, Clement." These men were the first three popes.

Opatatus:
In the city of Rome the Episcopal chair was given first to Peter, the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head – that is why he is also called Cephas [Rock] – of all the Apostles, the one chair is which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the Apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would presume to set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner…Recall then the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church. (Opatatus, The Schism of the Donatists, 2:2, 367 A.D.)

What did the Lord say about vain repetitions?
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: PeterTheAleut on March 28, 2013, 11:30:34 PM

So, I was talking with an RC coworker today, and he said that the Pope no longer claims infallibility.

He then asked me who our head hancho is, which gave me a great opportunity to give a short lesson in Orthodoxy. All bishops equal, first among equals and that Christ is at the Head of our Church.

so this guy was off his rocker?

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. (St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, (3,3,2), 180 A.D.)
Yes, this passage from St. Irenaeus has been brought up and the Roman Catholic interpretation refuted more times than I care to remember on this forum. It's an old canard, a very old canard.
refuted is a term you use loosly, I don't need the church fathers to prove the papacy, I have the bible , try as you may you can't refute the fact that Jesus gives only  Peter the keys to the kingdom, tells Peter he is the rock, and tells Peter to rule His sheep in John 21...I've read the attempts to refute this on this forum and they all failed miserably

Even if, for the sakes of argument, I were to agree with your interpretation of Scripture (I don't, but we'll put that aside for now), you still would have to explain how you get from St. Peter as monarch of the Church to the Pope of Rome in that role. Why not the Patriarch of Antioch, who would certainly seem to have prior claim? Why not the Patriarch of Alexandria? Nowhere in Scripture does it say that the Pope of Rome is the successor to St. Peter and one of the Popes of Rome (St. Gregory the Great) clearly describes the all three Patriarchates (Rome, Antioch and Alexandria) as the See of St. Peter.

I keep seeing you claiming to have refuted Orthodox arguments, but all I actually see is bluster. Your 'arguments' seem to consist of you sticking both fingers in your ears and declaring that nobody can refute you. Thankfully not all the Catholics here are so poor at presenting their case.

James
where did St Peter die


When Pope Victor I (189-198) chose to excommunicate the Asian churches from the universal church and Rome for following their own tradition concerning the appropriate day to celebrate the Resurrection, a number of bishops were critical of him, but none challenged his authority to do so. St. Irenaeus urged him not “to cut off whole churches” and he relented, though he had called synods to consider the problem on his own authority. St. Irenaeus, writing his famous “Against Heresies” after 180 A.D. noted, It is possible, then, for everyone in every Church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the Apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the Apostles, and their successors to our own times . . . . The blessed Apostles [Peter and Paul] having founded and built up the Church [of Rome] handed over the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the epistle to Timothy [2 Tim 4:21] To him succeeded Anencletus; and after him in the third place, from the Apostles, Clement." These men were the first three popes.

Opatatus:
In the city of Rome the Episcopal chair was given first to Peter, the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head – that is why he is also called Cephas [Rock] – of all the Apostles, the one chair is which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the Apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would presume to set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner…Recall then the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church. (Opatatus, The Schism of the Donatists, 2:2, 367 A.D.)

What did the Lord say about vain repetitions?
How much will it cost me to buy green tea in Shanghai?
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: SolEX01 on March 29, 2013, 12:03:36 AM

So, I was talking with an RC coworker today, and he said that the Pope no longer claims infallibility.

He then asked me who our head hancho is, which gave me a great opportunity to give a short lesson in Orthodoxy. All bishops equal, first among equals and that Christ is at the Head of our Church.

so this guy was off his rocker?

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. (St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, (3,3,2), 180 A.D.)
Yes, this passage from St. Irenaeus has been brought up and the Roman Catholic interpretation refuted more times than I care to remember on this forum. It's an old canard, a very old canard.
refuted is a term you use loosly, I don't need the church fathers to prove the papacy, I have the bible , try as you may you can't refute the fact that Jesus gives only  Peter the keys to the kingdom, tells Peter he is the rock, and tells Peter to rule His sheep in John 21...I've read the attempts to refute this on this forum and they all failed miserably

Even if, for the sakes of argument, I were to agree with your interpretation of Scripture (I don't, but we'll put that aside for now), you still would have to explain how you get from St. Peter as monarch of the Church to the Pope of Rome in that role. Why not the Patriarch of Antioch, who would certainly seem to have prior claim? Why not the Patriarch of Alexandria? Nowhere in Scripture does it say that the Pope of Rome is the successor to St. Peter and one of the Popes of Rome (St. Gregory the Great) clearly describes the all three Patriarchates (Rome, Antioch and Alexandria) as the See of St. Peter.

I keep seeing you claiming to have refuted Orthodox arguments, but all I actually see is bluster. Your 'arguments' seem to consist of you sticking both fingers in your ears and declaring that nobody can refute you. Thankfully not all the Catholics here are so poor at presenting their case.

James
where did St Peter die


When Pope Victor I (189-198) chose to excommunicate the Asian churches from the universal church and Rome for following their own tradition concerning the appropriate day to celebrate the Resurrection, a number of bishops were critical of him, but none challenged his authority to do so. St. Irenaeus urged him not “to cut off whole churches” and he relented, though he had called synods to consider the problem on his own authority. St. Irenaeus, writing his famous “Against Heresies” after 180 A.D. noted, It is possible, then, for everyone in every Church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the Apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the Apostles, and their successors to our own times . . . . The blessed Apostles [Peter and Paul] having founded and built up the Church [of Rome] handed over the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the epistle to Timothy [2 Tim 4:21] To him succeeded Anencletus; and after him in the third place, from the Apostles, Clement." These men were the first three popes.

Opatatus:
In the city of Rome the Episcopal chair was given first to Peter, the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head – that is why he is also called Cephas [Rock] – of all the Apostles, the one chair is which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the Apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would presume to set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner…Recall then the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church. (Opatatus, The Schism of the Donatists, 2:2, 367 A.D.)

What did the Lord say about vain repetitions?
How much will it cost me to buy green tea in Shanghai?

I forget the lesson from that comment.   ???
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Cyrillic on March 29, 2013, 04:23:06 AM
if I take a quote out of context it's your job to prove it, just by saying I take a quote out of context doesn't make it so..sorry

Not every time a Church Father says Peter do they refer to the Pope.

...and if there are other good arguements for the papacy which I'm sure there are as I never stated these are the only arguments ..why don't you point them out

Perhaps because I hope to become Eastern Orthodox and I would be shooting myself in the foot by giving you good arguments for the Papacy?
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Cyrillic on March 29, 2013, 05:01:23 AM
Thanks. My latin is pretty wee so it may take a while for me to read through the relevant passages.

Not to stereotype or anything, but Scots aren't known for their Latin.
Who's a scot?

(emphasis added)
LOL. I get it now. <palm to forhead> I meant to say, "My latin is pretty week."

LOL.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: orthonorm on March 29, 2013, 05:20:01 AM
if I take a quote out of context it's your job to prove it, just by saying I take a quote out of context doesn't make it so..sorry

Not every time a Church Father says Peter do they refer to the Pope.

...and if there are other good arguements for the papacy which I'm sure there are as I never stated these are the only arguments ..why don't you point them out

Perhaps because I hope to become Eastern Orthodox and I would be shooting myself in the foot by giving you good arguments for the Papacy?

I'm interested. Do that devil's advocate thing.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: sedevacantist on March 29, 2013, 07:39:58 AM
if I take a quote out of context it's your job to prove it, just by saying I take a quote out of context doesn't make it so..sorry

Not every time a Church Father says Peter do they refer to the Pope.

...and if there are other good arguements for the papacy which I'm sure there are as I never stated these are the only arguments ..why don't you point them out

Perhaps because I hope to become Eastern Orthodox and I would be shooting myself in the foot by giving you good arguments for the Papacy?
I see, we have different goals you and I , I want the truth, the whole truth no matter where it lies, you on the other hand want to join a religion whereby even if it's not the total truth , you don't care, as long as you are accepted by the  orthodox, the arguements I presented are enough to prove what is the true catholic faith and no one here can refute them.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Cyrillic on March 29, 2013, 08:45:09 AM

I'm interested. Do that devil's advocate thing.

OK. Just keep in mind that I don't agree with it myself. It is full of sophistries, isn't written very eloquently and is tl;dr:

Peter is the Rock on which the Church is built:

Peter is the first of the Apostles. Not only is this continually mentioned in the hymns of the Church, the Fathers too said the same. "Peter, on whom the Church of Christ is built up, left one epistle generally received" wrote Origen (Eus. H.E VI.25) and St. Basil wrote  (Adv. Eunom.): "When we say Peter we mean the son of Jonas, brother of Andrew, who since he was the greatest in faith received the building up of the Church to himself". The list of quotes from the Fathers, including names like St. John Chrysostom and St. Ephrem, which say the same would indeed be too long for this forum post. Even the Menaion of the Church of Constantinople calls St. Peter on the feast day of St. Peter in the Chains in the Hesperinon: "The foundation of the Church and Rock of the faith" and "Immovable basis of dogmas".

Moreover, the menaion of the 13th of April has this to say about Pope St. Martin: "By what name shall I call thee, oh Martin ! Shall I call thee the glorious ruler of the Orthodox Faith for all? Or the sacred chief of divine dogmas, unstained by error?... Or the most true reprover of heresy ? ... We know that thou
wast the foundation of bishops, pillar of the Orthodox Faith, teacher of religion... Thou didst adorn the divine See of Peter, and since thou from this divine Rock didst guard the Church unmoved, so now with him (St. Peter) art thou glorified."

Besides, St. Jerome, at the moment in "the East, shattered as it is by the long-standing feuds, subsisting between its peoples, is bit by bit tearing into shreds the seamless vest of the Lord (ep. 15)" writes to Pope Damasus: "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. (idem.)"

This speaks for itself.

The Pope is the successor of St. Peter/St. Peter was the first bishop of Rome:

The Popes claimed to be the successors of St. Peter and thus "the rock" and the "immovable basis of dogmas". Eusebius of Caesarea wrote: "Linus received the Bishopric of the Roman Church first after Peter". The Council of Chalcedon and Constantinople III clearly approved of this when they cried out "Peter has spoken thus through Leo/Agatho". Again, the sticheron in the Menaion of June states "Summit and foundation of the Apostles, you left all things and followed your Master, saying: May I die with you, so as to live the life of the Blessed. You became the first Bishop of Rome; you were the glory and honour of the greatest of all cities and fulcrum of the Church, oh Peter, against which the gates of hell shall never prevail.". Lex orandi, lex credendi.

It's even more explicit on the feast day of St. Gregory Dialogos: "Most sacred Pastor, thou art the successor of the see and also of the zeal of the first one, cleansing the people and bringing them to God. Successor of the throne of the prince of the choir of disciples, whence thou dost by thy teaching as with a torch enlighten the faithful, oh Gregory!"

The Pope enjoys universal jurisdiction:

Obviously, the rock could not have perished with the death of St. Peter. St. John Chrysostom states (De Sac. ii. 1. PG: 48:632.) "Why did he (our Lord) shed his blood? To redeem the sheep which he handed over to Peter and to his successors.". Thus, there must still be successors of St. Peter who still shepherd the Church. Who then is this shepherd?

Let's ask St. Basil, who wrote this in a letter to St. Athanasius (ep. 69): "It has seemed to me to be desirable to send a letter to the bishop of Rome, begging him to examine our condition, and since there are difficulties in the way of representatives being sent from the West by a general synodical decree, to advise him to exercise his own personal authority in the matter by choosing suitable persons to sustain the labours of a journey—suitable, too, by gentleness and firmness of character, to correct the unruly among us here". Obviously, the Pope had no authority in Cappadocia unless he had universal jurisdiction.

That the Pope has universal jurisdiction is shown as well in the fact that the Pope summoned St. Athanasius and his accusers to Rome to stand trial before the Roman Pope. St. Athanasius came and submitted himself to the judgment of the Roman Bishop, who had no authority in Egypt (can. 6 of Nicaea), unless, of course, he had universal jurisdiction. The Pope reinstated St. Athanasius, because, according to Sozomen (H.E III,8), "the care of all belonged to him because of the rank of his see, he restored to each one his Church." By coming to Rome, submitting himself to trial and acknowledging the verdict St. Athanasius clearly recognised the universal jurisdiction of the Pope.

Rome does not and shall not err:

"For since the beginning, when the Word of God came down to us, being made man, all the Churches of the Christians have received one only firm basis and
foundation, the great Church that is there (at Rome), against which, according to the Saviour's promise, the gates of hell shall never prevail, and which holds the keys of the true faith in him, which gives the true and only piety to those who come to her devoutly, which shuts the mouth of all heretics" wrote the great Maximus the Confessor (Ep. Romae scripta, ii. 72,). And indeed, this is proven by history. The other Patriarchates repeatedly fell into heresies like nestorianism, iconoclasm and monophysitism (I don't believe the non-chalcedonians are heretics or monophysites, this is just an exercise in rhetorics -- Cyrillic) and Rome alone held the faith undefiled. Many more quotes like this one can be adduced from the writings of the Fathers.

Rome too is the final arbiter of any dogmatic questions. ""till you come to the Apostolic See" St. Sophronius of Jerusalem said (Mansi X, 896) "where is the foundation of the Orthodox belief. Tell the most holy persons of that see all about our difficulties : do not cease to beg and entreat them until their Apostolic and divine wisdom shall pronounce the victorious sentence, and shall canonically destroy and root out this new heresy." And how can the foundation of Orthodox belief fail?

As a last example I will adduce the testimony of St. Theodore the Studite, which lived just before the time that Photius bewitched the Byzantine Church and made them look with disdain upon the first of bishops (I don't actually believe this myself, St. Photius pray for us! --Cyrillic). St. Theodore of Studium, one of the last witnesses of the old Byzantine Church, clearly shows that the pre-Photian Byzantine Church had the same beliefs about the Papacy as the Latin west. In a letter to the Pope he asks him to invoke his universal jurisdiction, which St. Theodore believed the Pope had. "Behold, now is the time and place: help us, you who are ordained by God for this. Stretch out your hand as far as you can. You have the power from God, since you are Prince of all. (Patrologia Graeca, xcix, 1153)"

How could the Pope else have jurisdiction in Constantinople and the Iconoclast East than with his universal jurisdiction?

Besides, St. Theodore believed that all matters of doctrinal importance should be referred to Rome. "If the Emperor is not content, if, as he says, the Patriarch
Nicephorus has wandered from the truth, both sides should send an embassy to the Roman (Patriarch), and should from him accept the certainty of faith (PG 99:1420)." St. Theodore wrote to the Pope asking his opinion on the iconoclasts. When Pope Paschal sent back a letter in which he condemned and excommunicates the iconoclasts Theodore said: "Now, indeed, I say before God and men that the heretics have separated themselves from the Body of Christ, from the supreme see in which Christ has placed the keys of faith, against which the gates of hell have never prevailed, and never shall prevail till the end. Let the most holy, the Apostolic, the beloved Paschal rejoice; he has accomplished the work of Peter." Remarkable quotes, especially since they were uttered mere decades before Photius usurped the Patriarchal Throne of Constantinople.

We have, then, as the belief of these Fathers that (i) Peter was the Prince of the Apostles and the Rock, (2) the Roman Pontiffs succeed him in this office, (3) therefore the Roman Bishop has jurisdiction over the whole Church of Christ, (4) and the faith of his Church is the standard of orthodoxy for all
Christians. And these four points make up exactly what Catholics believe about the Pope.

I could go on and on with this, but this is long enough, I think. Again, it's pretty much nonsense but it sounds more convincing than your average Roman polemics. Forgive me the grammatical slipups. I typed this quickly and I'm incredibly tired.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Cyrillic on March 29, 2013, 08:51:13 AM
I see, we have different goals you and I , I want the truth, the whole truth no matter where it lies, you on the other hand want to join a religion whereby even if it's not the total truth , you don't care, as long as you are accepted by the  orthodox, the arguements I presented are enough to prove what is the true catholic faith and no one here can refute them.

Well, no. I just like rhetorics and enjoy switching POV's in (political) debates, just to see if I can convince others using rhetorics to accept a position I actually oppose.

I do believe the Orthodox faith to be the total truth. I know the arguments for the Papacy, considered them and rejected them, if it makes you feel any better.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: sedevacantist on March 29, 2013, 11:41:55 PM
I see, we have different goals you and I , I want the truth, the whole truth no matter where it lies, you on the other hand want to join a religion whereby even if it's not the total truth , you don't care, as long as you are accepted by the  orthodox, the arguements I presented are enough to prove what is the true catholic faith and no one here can refute them.

Well, no. I just like rhetorics and enjoy switching POV's in (political) debates, just to see if I can convince others using rhetorics to accept a position I actually oppose.

I do believe the Orthodox faith to be the total truth. I know the arguments for the Papacy, considered them and rejected them, if it makes you feel any better.
why do you reject the truth, reject the bible, and no it doesn't make me feel better that you are outside the church and that your salvation is clearly in jeopardy
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: JoeS2 on March 30, 2013, 12:11:58 AM
I see, we have different goals you and I , I want the truth, the whole truth no matter where it lies, you on the other hand want to join a religion whereby even if it's not the total truth , you don't care, as long as you are accepted by the  orthodox, the arguements I presented are enough to prove what is the true catholic faith and no one here can refute them.

Well, no. I just like rhetorics and enjoy switching POV's in (political) debates, just to see if I can convince others using rhetorics to accept a position I actually oppose.

I do believe the Orthodox faith to be the total truth. I know the arguments for the Papacy, considered them and rejected them, if it makes you feel any better.
why do you reject the truth, reject the bible, and no it doesn't make me feel better that you are outside the church and that your salvation is clearly in jeopardy

So, you feel that we Orthodox are "outside" the church....We are the Church, the original church of the East.  We love the Bible and Tradition.  One's salvation is in God's hands and His Eternal Mercy.  And that goes for RC's as well.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: PeterTheAleut on March 30, 2013, 12:12:57 AM
if I take a quote out of context it's your job to prove it, just by saying I take a quote out of context doesn't make it so..sorry

Not every time a Church Father says Peter do they refer to the Pope.

...and if there are other good arguements for the papacy which I'm sure there are as I never stated these are the only arguments ..why don't you point them out

Perhaps because I hope to become Eastern Orthodox and I would be shooting myself in the foot by giving you good arguments for the Papacy?
I see, we have different goals you and I , I want the truth, the whole truth no matter where it lies, you on the other hand want to join a religion whereby even if it's not the total truth , you don't care, as long as you are accepted by the  orthodox, the arguements I presented are enough to prove what is the true catholic faith and no one here can refute them.
That your mind is made up and you're too stubborn to change it when presented with contrary arguments is readily apparent here.

Saying your arguments cannot be refuted... :-\ sounds rather presumptuous to me.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: choy on March 30, 2013, 12:19:10 AM
if I take a quote out of context it's your job to prove it, just by saying I take a quote out of context doesn't make it so..sorry

Not every time a Church Father says Peter do they refer to the Pope.

...and if there are other good arguements for the papacy which I'm sure there are as I never stated these are the only arguments ..why don't you point them out

Perhaps because I hope to become Eastern Orthodox and I would be shooting myself in the foot by giving you good arguments for the Papacy?
I see, we have different goals you and I , I want the truth, the whole truth no matter where it lies, you on the other hand want to join a religion whereby even if it's not the total truth , you don't care, as long as you are accepted by the  orthodox, the arguements I presented are enough to prove what is the true catholic faith and no one here can refute them.

If you want the whole truth then you'd be Orthodox.  You claim that you would go to where the truth is no matter where it is, yet you are closed minded to be anywhere else other than where you are.  You won't even go back to the original and true Roman Church under the Pope of Rome.  You'd rather be your own Pope.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: JoeS2 on March 30, 2013, 12:25:32 AM
if I take a quote out of context it's your job to prove it, just by saying I take a quote out of context doesn't make it so..sorry

Not every time a Church Father says Peter do they refer to the Pope.

...and if there are other good arguements for the papacy which I'm sure there are as I never stated these are the only arguments ..why don't you point them out

Perhaps because I hope to become Eastern Orthodox and I would be shooting myself in the foot by giving you good arguments for the Papacy?
I see, we have different goals you and I , I want the truth, the whole truth no matter where it lies, you on the other hand want to join a religion whereby even if it's not the total truth , you don't care, as long as you are accepted by the  orthodox, the arguements I presented are enough to prove what is the true catholic faith and no one here can refute them.

If you want the whole truth then you'd be Orthodox.  You claim that you would go to where the truth is no matter where it is, yet you are closed minded to be anywhere else other than where you are.  You won't even go back to the original and true Roman Church under the Pope of Rome.  You'd rather be your own Pope.

One needs to wrap yourself around God, rather than wrapping God around you.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: orthonorm on March 30, 2013, 12:37:12 AM

I'm interested. Do that devil's advocate thing.

OK. Just keep in mind that I don't agree with it myself. It is full of sophistries, isn't written very eloquently and is tl;dr:

Peter is the Rock on which the Church is built:

Peter is the first of the Apostles. Not only is this continually mentioned in the hymns of the Church, the Fathers too said the same. "Peter, on whom the Church of Christ is built up, left one epistle generally received" wrote Origen (Eus. H.E VI.25) and St. Basil wrote  (Adv. Eunom.): "When we say Peter we mean the son of Jonas, brother of Andrew, who since he was the greatest in faith received the building up of the Church to himself". The list of quotes from the Fathers, including names like St. John Chrysostom and St. Ephrem, which say the same would indeed be too long for this forum post. Even the Menaion of the Church of Constantinople calls St. Peter on the feast day of St. Peter in the Chains in the Hesperinon: "The foundation of the Church and Rock of the faith" and "Immovable basis of dogmas".

Moreover, the menaion of the 13th of April has this to say about Pope St. Martin: "By what name shall I call thee, oh Martin ! Shall I call thee the glorious ruler of the Orthodox Faith for all? Or the sacred chief of divine dogmas, unstained by error?... Or the most true reprover of heresy ? ... We know that thou
wast the foundation of bishops, pillar of the Orthodox Faith, teacher of religion... Thou didst adorn the divine See of Peter, and since thou from this divine Rock didst guard the Church unmoved, so now with him (St. Peter) art thou glorified."

Besides, St. Jerome, at the moment in "the East, shattered as it is by the long-standing feuds, subsisting between its peoples, is bit by bit tearing into shreds the seamless vest of the Lord (ep. 15)" writes to Pope Damasus: "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. (idem.)"

This speaks for itself.

The Pope is the successor of St. Peter/St. Peter was the first bishop of Rome:

The Popes claimed to be the successors of St. Peter and thus "the rock" and the "immovable basis of dogmas". Eusebius of Caesarea wrote: "Linus received the Bishopric of the Roman Church first after Peter". The Council of Chalcedon and Constantinople III clearly approved of this when they cried out "Peter has spoken thus through Leo/Agatho". Again, the sticheron in the Menaion of June states "Summit and foundation of the Apostles, you left all things and followed your Master, saying: May I die with you, so as to live the life of the Blessed. You became the first Bishop of Rome; you were the glory and honour of the greatest of all cities and fulcrum of the Church, oh Peter, against which the gates of hell shall never prevail.". Lex orandi, lex credendi.

It's even more explicit on the feast day of St. Gregory Dialogos: "Most sacred Pastor, thou art the successor of the see and also of the zeal of the first one, cleansing the people and bringing them to God. Successor of the throne of the prince of the choir of disciples, whence thou dost by thy teaching as with a torch enlighten the faithful, oh Gregory!"

The Pope enjoys universal jurisdiction:

Obviously, the rock could not have perished with the death of St. Peter. St. John Chrysostom states (De Sac. ii. 1. PG: 48:632.) "Why did he (our Lord) shed his blood? To redeem the sheep which he handed over to Peter and to his successors.". Thus, there must still be successors of St. Peter who still shepherd the Church. Who then is this shepherd?

Let's ask St. Basil, who wrote this in a letter to St. Athanasius (ep. 69): "It has seemed to me to be desirable to send a letter to the bishop of Rome, begging him to examine our condition, and since there are difficulties in the way of representatives being sent from the West by a general synodical decree, to advise him to exercise his own personal authority in the matter by choosing suitable persons to sustain the labours of a journey—suitable, too, by gentleness and firmness of character, to correct the unruly among us here". Obviously, the Pope had no authority in Cappadocia unless he had universal jurisdiction.

That the Pope has universal jurisdiction is shown as well in the fact that the Pope summoned St. Athanasius and his accusers to Rome to stand trial before the Roman Pope. St. Athanasius came and submitted himself to the judgment of the Roman Bishop, who had no authority in Egypt (can. 6 of Nicaea), unless, of course, he had universal jurisdiction. The Pope reinstated St. Athanasius, because, according to Sozomen (H.E III,8), "the care of all belonged to him because of the rank of his see, he restored to each one his Church." By coming to Rome, submitting himself to trial and acknowledging the verdict St. Athanasius clearly recognised the universal jurisdiction of the Pope.

Rome does not and shall not err:

"For since the beginning, when the Word of God came down to us, being made man, all the Churches of the Christians have received one only firm basis and
foundation, the great Church that is there (at Rome), against which, according to the Saviour's promise, the gates of hell shall never prevail, and which holds the keys of the true faith in him, which gives the true and only piety to those who come to her devoutly, which shuts the mouth of all heretics" wrote the great Maximus the Confessor (Ep. Romae scripta, ii. 72,). And indeed, this is proven by history. The other Patriarchates repeatedly fell into heresies like nestorianism, iconoclasm and monophysitism (I don't believe the non-chalcedonians are heretics or monophysites, this is just an exercise in rhetorics -- Cyrillic) and Rome alone held the faith undefiled. Many more quotes like this one can be adduced from the writings of the Fathers.

Rome too is the final arbiter of any dogmatic questions. ""till you come to the Apostolic See" St. Sophronius of Jerusalem said (Mansi X, 896) "where is the foundation of the Orthodox belief. Tell the most holy persons of that see all about our difficulties : do not cease to beg and entreat them until their Apostolic and divine wisdom shall pronounce the victorious sentence, and shall canonically destroy and root out this new heresy." And how can the foundation of Orthodox belief fail?

As a last example I will adduce the testimony of St. Theodore the Studite, which lived just before the time that Photius bewitched the Byzantine Church and made them look with disdain upon the first of bishops (I don't actually believe this myself, St. Photius pray for us! --Cyrillic). St. Theodore of Studium, one of the last witnesses of the old Byzantine Church, clearly shows that the pre-Photian Byzantine Church had the same beliefs about the Papacy as the Latin west. In a letter to the Pope he asks him to invoke his universal jurisdiction, which St. Theodore believed the Pope had. "Behold, now is the time and place: help us, you who are ordained by God for this. Stretch out your hand as far as you can. You have the power from God, since you are Prince of all. (Patrologia Graeca, xcix, 1153)"

How could the Pope else have jurisdiction in Constantinople and the Iconoclast East than with his universal jurisdiction?

Besides, St. Theodore believed that all matters of doctrinal importance should be referred to Rome. "If the Emperor is not content, if, as he says, the Patriarch
Nicephorus has wandered from the truth, both sides should send an embassy to the Roman (Patriarch), and should from him accept the certainty of faith (PG 99:1420)." St. Theodore wrote to the Pope asking his opinion on the iconoclasts. When Pope Paschal sent back a letter in which he condemned and excommunicates the iconoclasts Theodore said: "Now, indeed, I say before God and men that the heretics have separated themselves from the Body of Christ, from the supreme see in which Christ has placed the keys of faith, against which the gates of hell have never prevailed, and never shall prevail till the end. Let the most holy, the Apostolic, the beloved Paschal rejoice; he has accomplished the work of Peter." Remarkable quotes, especially since they were uttered mere decades before Photius usurped the Patriarchal Throne of Constantinople.

We have, then, as the belief of these Fathers that (i) Peter was the Prince of the Apostles and the Rock, (2) the Roman Pontiffs succeed him in this office, (3) therefore the Roman Bishop has jurisdiction over the whole Church of Christ, (4) and the faith of his Church is the standard of orthodoxy for all
Christians. And these four points make up exactly what Catholics believe about the Pope.

I could go on and on with this, but this is long enough, I think. Again, it's pretty much nonsense but it sounds more convincing than your average Roman polemics. Forgive me the grammatical slipups. I typed this quickly and I'm incredibly tired.

Thank you. I'll read it more carefully when I am not as tired.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: orthonorm on March 30, 2013, 12:38:43 AM
I see, we have different goals you and I , I want the truth, the whole truth no matter where it lies, you on the other hand want to join a religion whereby even if it's not the total truth , you don't care, as long as you are accepted by the  orthodox, the arguements I presented are enough to prove what is the true catholic faith and no one here can refute them.

Well, no. I just like rhetorics and enjoy switching POV's in (political) debates, just to see if I can convince others using rhetorics to accept a position I actually oppose.

A very classical manner of learning. One could even say, Latin.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Cyrillic on March 30, 2013, 05:06:52 AM
why do you reject the truth, reject the bible

I don't.

it doesn't make me feel better that you are outside the church and that your salvation is clearly in jeopardy

Yes. I'm aware that being outside the Church is risky, but as I told you before I'm working on remedying this.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Peter J on March 30, 2013, 07:11:13 AM
why do you reject the truth, reject the bible

Because they're all evil! Evil I say!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: sedevacantist on March 30, 2013, 07:27:29 AM
if I take a quote out of context it's your job to prove it, just by saying I take a quote out of context doesn't make it so..sorry

Not every time a Church Father says Peter do they refer to the Pope.

...and if there are other good arguements for the papacy which I'm sure there are as I never stated these are the only arguments ..why don't you point them out

Perhaps because I hope to become Eastern Orthodox and I would be shooting myself in the foot by giving you good arguments for the Papacy?
I see, we have different goals you and I , I want the truth, the whole truth no matter where it lies, you on the other hand want to join a religion whereby even if it's not the total truth , you don't care, as long as you are accepted by the  orthodox, the arguements I presented are enough to prove what is the true catholic faith and no one here can refute them.
That your mind is made up and you're too stubborn to change it when presented with contrary arguments is readily apparent here.

Saying your arguments cannot be refuted... :-\ sounds rather presumptuous to me.
that your mind is made up and you're too stubborn to change it when presented with contrary arguments is readily apparent here.
are you saying your arguements can be refuted????
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: sedevacantist on March 30, 2013, 07:34:17 AM
if I take a quote out of context it's your job to prove it, just by saying I take a quote out of context doesn't make it so..sorry

Not every time a Church Father says Peter do they refer to the Pope.

...and if there are other good arguements for the papacy which I'm sure there are as I never stated these are the only arguments ..why don't you point them out

Perhaps because I hope to become Eastern Orthodox and I would be shooting myself in the foot by giving you good arguments for the Papacy?
I see, we have different goals you and I , I want the truth, the whole truth no matter where it lies, you on the other hand want to join a religion whereby even if it's not the total truth , you don't care, as long as you are accepted by the  orthodox, the arguements I presented are enough to prove what is the true catholic faith and no one here can refute them.

If you want the whole truth then you'd be Orthodox.  You claim that you would go to where the truth is no matter where it is, yet you are closed minded to be anywhere else other than where you are.  You won't even go back to the original and true Roman Church under the Pope of Rome.  You'd rather be your own Pope.
so I'm closed minded because I believe my position is true??? what on earth are u talking about? if I was closed minded I would have still been going to the wretched new mass, so the opposite is true, I am opened minded because I was able to break out of the vatican 2 sect even though I grew up in it, my family and friends are closed minded in that they can't accept the evidence presented that the new mass/vatican is evil....I'll just add  your "be own pope" comment to the list of ridiculous things you have posted already.....you confirm once more that you just don't know what you're talking about
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: PeterTheAleut on March 30, 2013, 12:59:18 PM
if I take a quote out of context it's your job to prove it, just by saying I take a quote out of context doesn't make it so..sorry

Not every time a Church Father says Peter do they refer to the Pope.

...and if there are other good arguements for the papacy which I'm sure there are as I never stated these are the only arguments ..why don't you point them out

Perhaps because I hope to become Eastern Orthodox and I would be shooting myself in the foot by giving you good arguments for the Papacy?
I see, we have different goals you and I , I want the truth, the whole truth no matter where it lies, you on the other hand want to join a religion whereby even if it's not the total truth , you don't care, as long as you are accepted by the  orthodox, the arguements I presented are enough to prove what is the true catholic faith and no one here can refute them.
That your mind is made up and you're too stubborn to change it when presented with contrary arguments is readily apparent here.

Saying your arguments cannot be refuted... :-\ sounds rather presumptuous to me.
that your mind is made up and you're too stubborn to change it when presented with contrary arguments is readily apparent here.
are you saying your arguements can be refuted????
Would you like to try? ;)
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: PeterTheAleut on March 30, 2013, 01:02:12 PM
if I take a quote out of context it's your job to prove it, just by saying I take a quote out of context doesn't make it so..sorry

Not every time a Church Father says Peter do they refer to the Pope.

...and if there are other good arguements for the papacy which I'm sure there are as I never stated these are the only arguments ..why don't you point them out

Perhaps because I hope to become Eastern Orthodox and I would be shooting myself in the foot by giving you good arguments for the Papacy?
I see, we have different goals you and I , I want the truth, the whole truth no matter where it lies, you on the other hand want to join a religion whereby even if it's not the total truth , you don't care, as long as you are accepted by the  orthodox, the arguements I presented are enough to prove what is the true catholic faith and no one here can refute them.

If you want the whole truth then you'd be Orthodox.  You claim that you would go to where the truth is no matter where it is, yet you are closed minded to be anywhere else other than where you are.  You won't even go back to the original and true Roman Church under the Pope of Rome.  You'd rather be your own Pope.
Y'know, sedevacantist is right. You don't know him for Jack, yet you presume to know his mind. You'd better quit while you're already behind before you dig yourself into a hole from which you will never extricate yourself.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: choy on March 30, 2013, 01:12:13 PM
Y'know, sedevacantist is right. You don't know him for Jack, yet you presume to know his mind. You'd better quit while you're already behind before you dig yourself into a hole from which you will never extricate yourself.

And you don't know me for jack, yet you do the same thing you accuse me of doing.  You're even further behind than I am.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: PeterTheAleut on March 30, 2013, 01:17:43 PM
Y'know, sedevacantist is right. You don't know him for Jack, yet you presume to know his mind. You'd better quit while you're already behind before you dig yourself into a hole from which you will never extricate yourself.

And you don't know me for jack, yet you do the same thing you accuse me of doing.  You're even further behind than I am.
Your words ring hollow when you're defending yourself.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Peter J on March 30, 2013, 02:06:30 PM
if I take a quote out of context it's your job to prove it, just by saying I take a quote out of context doesn't make it so..sorry

Not every time a Church Father says Peter do they refer to the Pope.

...and if there are other good arguements for the papacy which I'm sure there are as I never stated these are the only arguments ..why don't you point them out

Perhaps because I hope to become Eastern Orthodox and I would be shooting myself in the foot by giving you good arguments for the Papacy?
I see, we have different goals you and I , I want the truth, the whole truth no matter where it lies, you on the other hand want to join a religion whereby even if it's not the total truth , you don't care, as long as you are accepted by the  orthodox, the arguements I presented are enough to prove what is the true catholic faith and no one here can refute them.

If you want the whole truth then you'd be Orthodox.  You claim that you would go to where the truth is no matter where it is, yet you are closed minded to be anywhere else other than where you are.  You won't even go back to the original and true Roman Church under the Pope of Rome.  You'd rather be your own Pope.
Y'know, sedevacantist is right. You don't know him for Jack, yet you presume to know his mind. You'd better quit while you're already behind before you dig yourself into a hole from which you will never extricate yourself.

^^ That seemed to come out of nowhere. (I says "seems" because I don't want to go back and re-read all the posts that led up to this one.)
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: sedevacantist on March 30, 2013, 09:15:02 PM
if I take a quote out of context it's your job to prove it, just by saying I take a quote out of context doesn't make it so..sorry

Not every time a Church Father says Peter do they refer to the Pope.

...and if there are other good arguements for the papacy which I'm sure there are as I never stated these are the only arguments ..why don't you point them out

Perhaps because I hope to become Eastern Orthodox and I would be shooting myself in the foot by giving you good arguments for the Papacy?
I see, we have different goals you and I , I want the truth, the whole truth no matter where it lies, you on the other hand want to join a religion whereby even if it's not the total truth , you don't care, as long as you are accepted by the  orthodox, the arguements I presented are enough to prove what is the true catholic faith and no one here can refute them.
That your mind is made up and you're too stubborn to change it when presented with contrary arguments is readily apparent here.

Saying your arguments cannot be refuted... :-\ sounds rather presumptuous to me.
that your mind is made up and you're too stubborn to change it when presented with contrary arguments is readily apparent here.
are you saying your arguements can be refuted????
Would you like to try? ;)
I have stated the argument that St Peter was given primacy of the church with the following, I guess it's up to you to refute it
Jesus tells Peter to rule His sheep

John 21:15-17

Jesus tells Peter to feed my lambs, tend my sheep, feed my sheep. Jesus clearly gives St Peter authority over His flock, the members of His church. Some may ask why Jesus says the 1st time, feed my lambs, and the 2nd and 3rd times my sheep. The early church fathers understood this reference to lambs and sheep to differentiate between youngerand older members of the Church, or to distinguish between the faithful and the clergy . All of them are entrusted to St Peter.

 

Now what’s particularly important is that when Jesus says Feed my lambs etc..the 2nd  command of the 3 is the word poimaine in Greek. Many bibles will translate all 3 the same way, as “feed”, but the 2nd command is actually different from the 1st and 3rd.

 

John 21:15-17 “ He saith unto him, Feed (boske) my lambs…he saith unto him tend (poimane) my sheep…Jesus saith unto him, feed (boske) my sheep.”

 

In the 1st and 3rd commands that Jesus gives to Peter about His flock, the word in the greek is boske. Boske means to feed. But the word poimane, the 2nd command of Jesus to peter about the flock, means to rule. It is also translated as tend. Hence, Jesus not only commissioned Peter to feed His Church, but to rule it. It’s fascinating that a form of the very same word poimane, which Jesus uses about peter’s authority over the flock in John 21:16, is also used in revelation 2:27

 

Rev 2;27 “ And he shall rule (poimanei) with a rod of iron..”

 

That means that Peter not only has a primacy over Christ’s flock, but a primacy of jurisdiction to rule and govern the flock, contrary to what Eastern Orthodox would say. The same word poimane is used in Rev 12:5 and elsewhere to indicate the power to rule.

 

 

St Basil the Great (330-379) AD , Against Eunomians, 4 “Peter…who on account of the pre-eminence of his faith received upon himself the building of the Church.”

 

St. Gregory Nazienzen, great Eastern father (329-389 A.D), oration 26”..of all the disciples of Christ, all of whom were great and deserving of the choice, one is called rock and entrusted with the foundations of the Church.”
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: PeterTheAleut on March 31, 2013, 01:50:14 AM
if I take a quote out of context it's your job to prove it, just by saying I take a quote out of context doesn't make it so..sorry

Not every time a Church Father says Peter do they refer to the Pope.

...and if there are other good arguements for the papacy which I'm sure there are as I never stated these are the only arguments ..why don't you point them out

Perhaps because I hope to become Eastern Orthodox and I would be shooting myself in the foot by giving you good arguments for the Papacy?
I see, we have different goals you and I , I want the truth, the whole truth no matter where it lies, you on the other hand want to join a religion whereby even if it's not the total truth , you don't care, as long as you are accepted by the  orthodox, the arguements I presented are enough to prove what is the true catholic faith and no one here can refute them.
That your mind is made up and you're too stubborn to change it when presented with contrary arguments is readily apparent here.

Saying your arguments cannot be refuted... :-\ sounds rather presumptuous to me.
that your mind is made up and you're too stubborn to change it when presented with contrary arguments is readily apparent here.
are you saying your arguements can be refuted????
Would you like to try? ;)
I have stated the argument that St Peter was given primacy of the church with the following, I guess it's up to you to refute it
Jesus tells Peter to rule His sheep

John 21:15-17

Jesus tells Peter to feed my lambs, tend my sheep, feed my sheep. Jesus clearly gives St Peter authority over His flock, the members of His church. Some may ask why Jesus says the 1st time, feed my lambs, and the 2nd and 3rd times my sheep. The early church fathers understood this reference to lambs and sheep to differentiate between youngerand older members of the Church, or to distinguish between the faithful and the clergy . All of them are entrusted to St Peter.

 

Now what’s particularly important is that when Jesus says Feed my lambs etc..the 2nd  command of the 3 is the word poimaine in Greek. Many bibles will translate all 3 the same way, as “feed”, but the 2nd command is actually different from the 1st and 3rd.

 

John 21:15-17 “ He saith unto him, Feed (boske) my lambs…he saith unto him tend (poimane) my sheep…Jesus saith unto him, feed (boske) my sheep.”

 

In the 1st and 3rd commands that Jesus gives to Peter about His flock, the word in the greek is boske. Boske means to feed. But the word poimane, the 2nd command of Jesus to peter about the flock, means to rule. It is also translated as tend. Hence, Jesus not only commissioned Peter to feed His Church, but to rule it. It’s fascinating that a form of the very same word poimane, which Jesus uses about peter’s authority over the flock in John 21:16, is also used in revelation 2:27

 

Rev 2;27 “ And he shall rule (poimanei) with a rod of iron..”

 

That means that Peter not only has a primacy over Christ’s flock, but a primacy of jurisdiction to rule and govern the flock, contrary to what Eastern Orthodox would say.
Actually, many Eastern Orthodox would agree for the most part with what you have said thus far about the primacy of the Apostle Peter, so you're kinda preaching to the choir here.

The same word poimane is used in Rev 12:5 and elsewhere to indicate the power to rule.

 

 

St Basil the Great (330-379) AD , Against Eunomians, 4 “Peter…who on account of the pre-eminence of his faith received upon himself the building of the Church.”

 

St. Gregory Nazienzen, great Eastern father (329-389 A.D), oration 26”..of all the disciples of Christ, all of whom were great and deserving of the choice, one is called rock and entrusted with the foundations of the Church.”
I don't have a problem with the primacy of St. Peter among the Apostles, or even with the primacy of Rome as a spiritual authority within the early Church. What I don't see as evident in early Church history is any concept, such as the Roman Church teaches today, of the sovereignty of a universal papal monarch or papal infallibility even in certain restricted circumstances. Your job is to convince me that modern Roman teachings about the papacy can be traced back to the early Church's understanding of Rome's primacy without you reading anything backward into the early writings. Can you do this?
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: sedevacantist on March 31, 2013, 02:08:29 PM
if I take a quote out of context it's your job to prove it, just by saying I take a quote out of context doesn't make it so..sorry

Not every time a Church Father says Peter do they refer to the Pope.

...and if there are other good arguements for the papacy which I'm sure there are as I never stated these are the only arguments ..why don't you point them out

Perhaps because I hope to become Eastern Orthodox and I would be shooting myself in the foot by giving you good arguments for the Papacy?
I see, we have different goals you and I , I want the truth, the whole truth no matter where it lies, you on the other hand want to join a religion whereby even if it's not the total truth , you don't care, as long as you are accepted by the  orthodox, the arguements I presented are enough to prove what is the true catholic faith and no one here can refute them.
That your mind is made up and you're too stubborn to change it when presented with contrary arguments is readily apparent here.

Saying your arguments cannot be refuted... :-\ sounds rather presumptuous to me.
that your mind is made up and you're too stubborn to change it when presented with contrary arguments is readily apparent here.
are you saying your arguements can be refuted????
Would you like to try? ;)
I have stated the argument that St Peter was given primacy of the church with the following, I guess it's up to you to refute it
Jesus tells Peter to rule His sheep

John 21:15-17

Jesus tells Peter to feed my lambs, tend my sheep, feed my sheep. Jesus clearly gives St Peter authority over His flock, the members of His church. Some may ask why Jesus says the 1st time, feed my lambs, and the 2nd and 3rd times my sheep. The early church fathers understood this reference to lambs and sheep to differentiate between youngerand older members of the Church, or to distinguish between the faithful and the clergy . All of them are entrusted to St Peter.

 

Now what’s particularly important is that when Jesus says Feed my lambs etc..the 2nd  command of the 3 is the word poimaine in Greek. Many bibles will translate all 3 the same way, as “feed”, but the 2nd command is actually different from the 1st and 3rd.

 

John 21:15-17 “ He saith unto him, Feed (boske) my lambs…he saith unto him tend (poimane) my sheep…Jesus saith unto him, feed (boske) my sheep.”

 

In the 1st and 3rd commands that Jesus gives to Peter about His flock, the word in the greek is boske. Boske means to feed. But the word poimane, the 2nd command of Jesus to peter about the flock, means to rule. It is also translated as tend. Hence, Jesus not only commissioned Peter to feed His Church, but to rule it. It’s fascinating that a form of the very same word poimane, which Jesus uses about peter’s authority over the flock in John 21:16, is also used in revelation 2:27

 

Rev 2;27 “ And he shall rule (poimanei) with a rod of iron..”

 

That means that Peter not only has a primacy over Christ’s flock, but a primacy of jurisdiction to rule and govern the flock, contrary to what Eastern Orthodox would say.
Actually, many Eastern Orthodox would agree for the most part with what you have said thus far about the primacy of the Apostle Peter, so you're kinda preaching to the choir here.

The same word poimane is used in Rev 12:5 and elsewhere to indicate the power to rule.

 

 

St Basil the Great (330-379) AD , Against Eunomians, 4 “Peter…who on account of the pre-eminence of his faith received upon himself the building of the Church.”

 

St. Gregory Nazienzen, great Eastern father (329-389 A.D), oration 26”..of all the disciples of Christ, all of whom were great and deserving of the choice, one is called rock and entrusted with the foundations of the Church.”
I don't have a problem with the primacy of St. Peter among the Apostles, or even with the primacy of Rome as a spiritual authority within the early Church. What I don't see as evident in early Church history is any concept, such as the Roman Church teaches today, of the sovereignty of a universal papal monarch or papal infallibility even in certain restricted circumstances. Your job is to convince me that modern Roman teachings about the papacy can be traced back to the early Church's understanding of Rome's primacy without you reading anything backward into the early writings. Can you do this?
fair enough, I did get resistance from others in this forum about what you seem to acknowledge, that Peter was the rock, was given primacy etc so I sense you all are not in agreement..... now the split came in 1054 between our churches, so I'm not sure if bringing up anything the popes said after this date as being useful correct? for example I know vatican 1 is a no no for you guys but the break came way before,
let me know your thoughts on the following

When Pope Victor I (189-198) chose to excommunicate the Asian churches from the universal church and Rome for following their own tradition concerning the appropriate day to celebrate the Resurrection, a number of bishops were critical of him, but none challenged his authority to do so. St. Irenaeus urged him not “to cut off whole churches” and he relented, though he had called synods to consider the problem on his own authority. St. Irenaeus, writing his famous “Against Heresies” after 180 A.D. noted, It is possible, then, for everyone in every Church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the Apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the Apostles, and their successors to our own times . . . . The blessed Apostles [Peter and Paul] having founded and built up the Church [of Rome] handed over the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the epistle to Timothy [2 Tim 4:21] To him succeeded Anencletus; and after him in the third place, from the Apostles, Clement." These men were the first three popes.

Writing in 251 A.D., St. Cyprian of Carthage noted:

And again He says to him [Peter] after His resurrection: 'Feed my sheep' (John 21:17). On him He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep; and although He assigns a like power to all the Apostles, yet He founded a single chair, 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; but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all our 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 desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that his is in the Church?"

Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: J Michael on March 31, 2013, 04:54:33 PM
Christos Voskrese!!
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: PeterTheAleut on March 31, 2013, 05:49:55 PM
if I take a quote out of context it's your job to prove it, just by saying I take a quote out of context doesn't make it so..sorry

Not every time a Church Father says Peter do they refer to the Pope.

...and if there are other good arguements for the papacy which I'm sure there are as I never stated these are the only arguments ..why don't you point them out

Perhaps because I hope to become Eastern Orthodox and I would be shooting myself in the foot by giving you good arguments for the Papacy?
I see, we have different goals you and I , I want the truth, the whole truth no matter where it lies, you on the other hand want to join a religion whereby even if it's not the total truth , you don't care, as long as you are accepted by the  orthodox, the arguements I presented are enough to prove what is the true catholic faith and no one here can refute them.
That your mind is made up and you're too stubborn to change it when presented with contrary arguments is readily apparent here.

Saying your arguments cannot be refuted... :-\ sounds rather presumptuous to me.
that your mind is made up and you're too stubborn to change it when presented with contrary arguments is readily apparent here.
are you saying your arguements can be refuted????
Would you like to try? ;)
I have stated the argument that St Peter was given primacy of the church with the following, I guess it's up to you to refute it
Jesus tells Peter to rule His sheep

John 21:15-17

Jesus tells Peter to feed my lambs, tend my sheep, feed my sheep. Jesus clearly gives St Peter authority over His flock, the members of His church. Some may ask why Jesus says the 1st time, feed my lambs, and the 2nd and 3rd times my sheep. The early church fathers understood this reference to lambs and sheep to differentiate between youngerand older members of the Church, or to distinguish between the faithful and the clergy . All of them are entrusted to St Peter.

 

Now what’s particularly important is that when Jesus says Feed my lambs etc..the 2nd  command of the 3 is the word poimaine in Greek. Many bibles will translate all 3 the same way, as “feed”, but the 2nd command is actually different from the 1st and 3rd.

 

John 21:15-17 “ He saith unto him, Feed (boske) my lambs…he saith unto him tend (poimane) my sheep…Jesus saith unto him, feed (boske) my sheep.”

 

In the 1st and 3rd commands that Jesus gives to Peter about His flock, the word in the greek is boske. Boske means to feed. But the word poimane, the 2nd command of Jesus to peter about the flock, means to rule. It is also translated as tend. Hence, Jesus not only commissioned Peter to feed His Church, but to rule it. It’s fascinating that a form of the very same word poimane, which Jesus uses about peter’s authority over the flock in John 21:16, is also used in revelation 2:27

 

Rev 2;27 “ And he shall rule (poimanei) with a rod of iron..”

 

That means that Peter not only has a primacy over Christ’s flock, but a primacy of jurisdiction to rule and govern the flock, contrary to what Eastern Orthodox would say.
Actually, many Eastern Orthodox would agree for the most part with what you have said thus far about the primacy of the Apostle Peter, so you're kinda preaching to the choir here.

The same word poimane is used in Rev 12:5 and elsewhere to indicate the power to rule.

 

 

St Basil the Great (330-379) AD , Against Eunomians, 4 “Peter…who on account of the pre-eminence of his faith received upon himself the building of the Church.”

 

St. Gregory Nazienzen, great Eastern father (329-389 A.D), oration 26”..of all the disciples of Christ, all of whom were great and deserving of the choice, one is called rock and entrusted with the foundations of the Church.”
I don't have a problem with the primacy of St. Peter among the Apostles, or even with the primacy of Rome as a spiritual authority within the early Church. What I don't see as evident in early Church history is any concept, such as the Roman Church teaches today, of the sovereignty of a universal papal monarch or papal infallibility even in certain restricted circumstances. Your job is to convince me that modern Roman teachings about the papacy can be traced back to the early Church's understanding of Rome's primacy without you reading anything backward into the early writings. Can you do this?
fair enough, I did get resistance from others in this forum about what you seem to acknowledge, that Peter was the rock, was given primacy etc so I sense you all are not in agreement..... now the split came in 1054 between our churches, so I'm not sure if bringing up anything the popes said after this date as being useful correct? for example I know vatican 1 is a no no for you guys but the break came way before,
let me know your thoughts on the following

When Pope Victor I (189-198) chose to excommunicate the Asian churches from the universal church and Rome for following their own tradition concerning the appropriate day to celebrate the Resurrection, a number of bishops were critical of him, but none challenged his authority to do so. St. Irenaeus urged him not “to cut off whole churches” and he relented, though he had called synods to consider the problem on his own authority. St. Irenaeus, writing his famous “Against Heresies” after 180 A.D. noted, It is possible, then, for everyone in every Church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the Apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the Apostles, and their successors to our own times . . . . The blessed Apostles [Peter and Paul] having founded and built up the Church [of Rome] handed over the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the epistle to Timothy [2 Tim 4:21] To him succeeded Anencletus; and after him in the third place, from the Apostles, Clement." These men were the first three popes.

Writing in 251 A.D., St. Cyprian of Carthage noted:

And again He says to him [Peter] after His resurrection: 'Feed my sheep' (John 21:17). On him He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep; and although He assigns a like power to all the Apostles, yet He founded a single chair, 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; but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all our 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 desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that his is in the Church?"
If Rome were to fall into heresy, would we be bound to follow her?
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Maria on March 31, 2013, 06:50:54 PM
if I take a quote out of context it's your job to prove it, just by saying I take a quote out of context doesn't make it so..sorry

Not every time a Church Father says Peter do they refer to the Pope.

...and if there are other good arguements for the papacy which I'm sure there are as I never stated these are the only arguments ..why don't you point them out

Perhaps because I hope to become Eastern Orthodox and I would be shooting myself in the foot by giving you good arguments for the Papacy?
I see, we have different goals you and I , I want the truth, the whole truth no matter where it lies, you on the other hand want to join a religion whereby even if it's not the total truth , you don't care, as long as you are accepted by the  orthodox, the arguements I presented are enough to prove what is the true catholic faith and no one here can refute them.
That your mind is made up and you're too stubborn to change it when presented with contrary arguments is readily apparent here.

Saying your arguments cannot be refuted... :-\ sounds rather presumptuous to me.
that your mind is made up and you're too stubborn to change it when presented with contrary arguments is readily apparent here.
are you saying your arguements can be refuted????
Would you like to try? ;)
I have stated the argument that St Peter was given primacy of the church with the following, I guess it's up to you to refute it
Jesus tells Peter to rule His sheep

John 21:15-17

Jesus tells Peter to feed my lambs, tend my sheep, feed my sheep. Jesus clearly gives St Peter authority over His flock, the members of His church. Some may ask why Jesus says the 1st time, feed my lambs, and the 2nd and 3rd times my sheep. The early church fathers understood this reference to lambs and sheep to differentiate between youngerand older members of the Church, or to distinguish between the faithful and the clergy . All of them are entrusted to St Peter.

 

Now what’s particularly important is that when Jesus says Feed my lambs etc..the 2nd  command of the 3 is the word poimaine in Greek. Many bibles will translate all 3 the same way, as “feed”, but the 2nd command is actually different from the 1st and 3rd.

 

John 21:15-17 “ He saith unto him, Feed (boske) my lambs…he saith unto him tend (poimane) my sheep…Jesus saith unto him, feed (boske) my sheep.”

 

In the 1st and 3rd commands that Jesus gives to Peter about His flock, the word in the greek is boske. Boske means to feed. But the word poimane, the 2nd command of Jesus to peter about the flock, means to rule. It is also translated as tend. Hence, Jesus not only commissioned Peter to feed His Church, but to rule it. It’s fascinating that a form of the very same word poimane, which Jesus uses about peter’s authority over the flock in John 21:16, is also used in revelation 2:27

 

Rev 2;27 “ And he shall rule (poimanei) with a rod of iron..”

 

That means that Peter not only has a primacy over Christ’s flock, but a primacy of jurisdiction to rule and govern the flock, contrary to what Eastern Orthodox would say.
Actually, many Eastern Orthodox would agree for the most part with what you have said thus far about the primacy of the Apostle Peter, so you're kinda preaching to the choir here.

The same word poimane is used in Rev 12:5 and elsewhere to indicate the power to rule.

 

 

St Basil the Great (330-379) AD , Against Eunomians, 4 “Peter…who on account of the pre-eminence of his faith received upon himself the building of the Church.”

 

St. Gregory Nazienzen, great Eastern father (329-389 A.D), oration 26”..of all the disciples of Christ, all of whom were great and deserving of the choice, one is called rock and entrusted with the foundations of the Church.”
I don't have a problem with the primacy of St. Peter among the Apostles, or even with the primacy of Rome as a spiritual authority within the early Church. What I don't see as evident in early Church history is any concept, such as the Roman Church teaches today, of the sovereignty of a universal papal monarch or papal infallibility even in certain restricted circumstances. Your job is to convince me that modern Roman teachings about the papacy can be traced back to the early Church's understanding of Rome's primacy without you reading anything backward into the early writings. Can you do this?
fair enough, I did get resistance from others in this forum about what you seem to acknowledge, that Peter was the rock, was given primacy etc so I sense you all are not in agreement..... now the split came in 1054 between our churches, so I'm not sure if bringing up anything the popes said after this date as being useful correct? for example I know vatican 1 is a no no for you guys but the break came way before,
let me know your thoughts on the following

When Pope Victor I (189-198) chose to excommunicate the Asian churches from the universal church and Rome for following their own tradition concerning the appropriate day to celebrate the Resurrection, a number of bishops were critical of him, but none challenged his authority to do so. St. Irenaeus urged him not “to cut off whole churches” and he relented, though he had called synods to consider the problem on his own authority. St. Irenaeus, writing his famous “Against Heresies” after 180 A.D. noted, It is possible, then, for everyone in every Church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the Apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the Apostles, and their successors to our own times . . . . The blessed Apostles [Peter and Paul] having founded and built up the Church [of Rome] handed over the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the epistle to Timothy [2 Tim 4:21] To him succeeded Anencletus; and after him in the third place, from the Apostles, Clement." These men were the first three popes.

Writing in 251 A.D., St. Cyprian of Carthage noted:

And again He says to him [Peter] after His resurrection: 'Feed my sheep' (John 21:17). On him He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep; and although He assigns a like power to all the Apostles, yet He founded a single chair, 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; but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all our 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 desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that his is in the Church?"
If Rome were to fall into heresy, would we be bound to follow her?

Rome did fall into heresy. That is why she split from Orthodoxy, then the Protestants split from her, and then millions have left Roman Catholicism in the 20th century.

Several Catholic periodicals have quoted from a survey done in the 1990's which showed that about 25 million people left the Roman Catholic Church from 1965 to 1990. While some of these people left to join Protestant sects, many became atheists, and a few joined Orthodox Christian jurisdictions. I knew some Catholic teaching sisters who left the convent after they had became atheists.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: PeterTheAleut on March 31, 2013, 07:29:40 PM
if I take a quote out of context it's your job to prove it, just by saying I take a quote out of context doesn't make it so..sorry

Not every time a Church Father says Peter do they refer to the Pope.

...and if there are other good arguements for the papacy which I'm sure there are as I never stated these are the only arguments ..why don't you point them out

Perhaps because I hope to become Eastern Orthodox and I would be shooting myself in the foot by giving you good arguments for the Papacy?
I see, we have different goals you and I , I want the truth, the whole truth no matter where it lies, you on the other hand want to join a religion whereby even if it's not the total truth , you don't care, as long as you are accepted by the  orthodox, the arguements I presented are enough to prove what is the true catholic faith and no one here can refute them.
That your mind is made up and you're too stubborn to change it when presented with contrary arguments is readily apparent here.

Saying your arguments cannot be refuted... :-\ sounds rather presumptuous to me.
that your mind is made up and you're too stubborn to change it when presented with contrary arguments is readily apparent here.
are you saying your arguements can be refuted????
Would you like to try? ;)
I have stated the argument that St Peter was given primacy of the church with the following, I guess it's up to you to refute it
Jesus tells Peter to rule His sheep

John 21:15-17

Jesus tells Peter to feed my lambs, tend my sheep, feed my sheep. Jesus clearly gives St Peter authority over His flock, the members of His church. Some may ask why Jesus says the 1st time, feed my lambs, and the 2nd and 3rd times my sheep. The early church fathers understood this reference to lambs and sheep to differentiate between youngerand older members of the Church, or to distinguish between the faithful and the clergy . All of them are entrusted to St Peter.

 

Now what’s particularly important is that when Jesus says Feed my lambs etc..the 2nd  command of the 3 is the word poimaine in Greek. Many bibles will translate all 3 the same way, as “feed”, but the 2nd command is actually different from the 1st and 3rd.

 

John 21:15-17 “ He saith unto him, Feed (boske) my lambs…he saith unto him tend (poimane) my sheep…Jesus saith unto him, feed (boske) my sheep.”

 

In the 1st and 3rd commands that Jesus gives to Peter about His flock, the word in the greek is boske. Boske means to feed. But the word poimane, the 2nd command of Jesus to peter about the flock, means to rule. It is also translated as tend. Hence, Jesus not only commissioned Peter to feed His Church, but to rule it. It’s fascinating that a form of the very same word poimane, which Jesus uses about peter’s authority over the flock in John 21:16, is also used in revelation 2:27

 

Rev 2;27 “ And he shall rule (poimanei) with a rod of iron..”

 

That means that Peter not only has a primacy over Christ’s flock, but a primacy of jurisdiction to rule and govern the flock, contrary to what Eastern Orthodox would say.
Actually, many Eastern Orthodox would agree for the most part with what you have said thus far about the primacy of the Apostle Peter, so you're kinda preaching to the choir here.

The same word poimane is used in Rev 12:5 and elsewhere to indicate the power to rule.

 

 

St Basil the Great (330-379) AD , Against Eunomians, 4 “Peter…who on account of the pre-eminence of his faith received upon himself the building of the Church.”

 

St. Gregory Nazienzen, great Eastern father (329-389 A.D), oration 26”..of all the disciples of Christ, all of whom were great and deserving of the choice, one is called rock and entrusted with the foundations of the Church.”
I don't have a problem with the primacy of St. Peter among the Apostles, or even with the primacy of Rome as a spiritual authority within the early Church. What I don't see as evident in early Church history is any concept, such as the Roman Church teaches today, of the sovereignty of a universal papal monarch or papal infallibility even in certain restricted circumstances. Your job is to convince me that modern Roman teachings about the papacy can be traced back to the early Church's understanding of Rome's primacy without you reading anything backward into the early writings. Can you do this?
fair enough, I did get resistance from others in this forum about what you seem to acknowledge, that Peter was the rock, was given primacy etc so I sense you all are not in agreement..... now the split came in 1054 between our churches, so I'm not sure if bringing up anything the popes said after this date as being useful correct? for example I know vatican 1 is a no no for you guys but the break came way before,
let me know your thoughts on the following

When Pope Victor I (189-198) chose to excommunicate the Asian churches from the universal church and Rome for following their own tradition concerning the appropriate day to celebrate the Resurrection, a number of bishops were critical of him, but none challenged his authority to do so. St. Irenaeus urged him not “to cut off whole churches” and he relented, though he had called synods to consider the problem on his own authority. St. Irenaeus, writing his famous “Against Heresies” after 180 A.D. noted, It is possible, then, for everyone in every Church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the Apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the Apostles, and their successors to our own times . . . . The blessed Apostles [Peter and Paul] having founded and built up the Church [of Rome] handed over the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the epistle to Timothy [2 Tim 4:21] To him succeeded Anencletus; and after him in the third place, from the Apostles, Clement." These men were the first three popes.

Writing in 251 A.D., St. Cyprian of Carthage noted:

And again He says to him [Peter] after His resurrection: 'Feed my sheep' (John 21:17). On him He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep; and although He assigns a like power to all the Apostles, yet He founded a single chair, 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; but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all our 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 desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that his is in the Church?"
If Rome were to fall into heresy, would we be bound to follow her?

Rome did fall into heresy. That is why she split from Orthodoxy, then the Protestants split from her, and then millions have left Roman Catholicism in the 20th century.

Several Catholic periodicals have quoted from a survey done in the 1990's which showed that about 25 million people left the Roman Catholic Church from 1965 to 1990. While some of these people left to join Protestant sects, many became atheists, and a few joined Orthodox Christian jurisdictions. I knew some Catholic teaching sisters who left the convent after they had became atheists.
I don't see what point you're trying to make, Maria. Seeing that Holy Russia became an atheist country, I'm not sure we have any cause to point out how the heresies of the Roman Church lead people to embrace atheism as if we were somehow immune to that problem ourselves just because we've preserved the True Faith.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Maria on March 31, 2013, 08:51:16 PM

If Rome were to fall into heresy, would we be bound to follow her?

Rome did fall into heresy. That is why she split from Orthodoxy, then the Protestants split from her, and then millions have left Roman Catholicism in the 20th century.

Several Catholic periodicals have quoted from a survey done in the 1990's which showed that about 25 million people left the Roman Catholic Church from 1965 to 1990. While some of these people left to join Protestant sects, many became atheists, and a few joined Orthodox Christian jurisdictions. I knew some Catholic teaching sisters who left the convent after they had became atheists.
I don't see what point you're trying to make, Maria. Seeing that Holy Russia became an atheist country, I'm not sure we have any cause to point out how the heresies of the Roman Church lead people to embrace atheism as if we were somehow immune to that problem ourselves just because we've preserved the True Faith.

Frankly, I cannot comprehend why you are bringing Russia into this discussion.

I was talking about the USA where more than 25,000,000 Catholics left the Roman Catholic Church and its papacy from 1965 to 1990.

Were you ever a Roman Catholic? Denouncing the Roman papacy is a huge step. When I was first shown the Hapgood denunciations in the rite of Chrismation, I was shocked. However, Bishop Tikhon Fitzgerald wanted every Roman Catholic converting to Orthodoxy to pronounce a denunciation of the papacy because in his experience, if a RC convert to Orthodoxy did not denounce the papacy, then he most likely would return to Rome.


Fixed quote tags  -PtA
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: PeterTheAleut on March 31, 2013, 09:02:07 PM

If Rome were to fall into heresy, would we be bound to follow her?

Rome did fall into heresy. That is why she split from Orthodoxy, then the Protestants split from her, and then millions have left Roman Catholicism in the 20th century.

Several Catholic periodicals have quoted from a survey done in the 1990's which showed that about 25 million people left the Roman Catholic Church from 1965 to 1990. While some of these people left to join Protestant sects, many became atheists, and a few joined Orthodox Christian jurisdictions. I knew some Catholic teaching sisters who left the convent after they had became atheists.
I don't see what point you're trying to make, Maria. Seeing that Holy Russia became an atheist country, I'm not sure we have any cause to point out how the heresies of the Roman Church lead people to embrace atheism as if we were somehow immune to that problem ourselves just because we've preserved the True Faith.

Frankly, I cannot comprehend why you are bringing Russia into this discussion.

I was talking about the USA where more than 25,000,000 Catholics left the Roman Catholic Church and its papacy from 1965 to 1990.

Were you ever a Roman Catholic? Denouncing the Roman papacy is a huge step. When I was first shown the Hapgood denunciations in the rite of Chrismation, I was shocked. However, Bishop Tikhon Fitzgerald wanted every Roman Catholic converting to Orthodoxy to pronounce a denunciation of the papacy because in his experience, if a RC convert to Orthodoxy did not denounce the papacy, then he most likely would return to Rome.
I guess I still don't understand what point you're trying to make by speaking in one paragraph of how the Roman Catholic Church fell into heresy and then speaking in the next of mass defections from Catholicism to atheism. Your logic seems like a non sequitur to me. Some context for why you mentioned the mass apostasy and what connection you see between that and the Roman Church's fall into heresy might help me understand your message better.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Maria on March 31, 2013, 09:09:19 PM
With Rome falling into heresy and introducing novel doctrines starting in 800 A.D., she caused serious repercussions. When Rome finally split from Orthodoxy in 1054 A.D., only a few centuries later the Protestants split from her, and then millions of Catholics left Roman Catholicism in the 20th century.

With loss of faith, many Catholics whom I have known have become atheistic or agnostic. My own father became an agnostic after graduating from a Jesuit high school.

Those who have lost their faith explained to me that it was the doctrines of Papal Infallibility, Papal Supremacy, and Immaculate Conception that were their undoing. Notice that all these Papal doctrines were introduced in modern times (on or after 1870).

Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: PeterTheAleut on March 31, 2013, 09:23:43 PM
With Rome falling into heresy and introducing novel doctrines starting in 800 A.D., she caused serious repercussions. When Rome finally split from Orthodoxy in 1054 A.D., only a few centuries later the Protestants split from her, and then millions of Catholics left Roman Catholicism in the 20th century.

With loss of faith, many Catholics whom I have known have become atheistic or agnostic. My own father became an agnostic after graduating from a Jesuit high school.

Those who have lost their faith explained to me that it was the doctrines of Papal Infallibility, Papal Supremacy, and Immaculate Conception that were their undoing. Notice that all these Papal doctrines were introduced in modern times (on or after 1870).
That may well be true, but I kinda hesitate to talk about how Roman Catholic deviations from orthodoxy have led many to leave Christianity altogether when we have our own history of a whole Orthodox nation--no less than the "Holy" Russian empire that many associate with the Third Rome itself--embracing atheism and enforcing atheism upon its masses through pain of exile and death. What you're doing just seems hypocritically triumphalistic to me. AISI, this is one of those issues where we need to address the log in our own eye before we go about looking for the speck in our brother's.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Maria on March 31, 2013, 09:33:21 PM
With Rome falling into heresy and introducing novel doctrines starting in 800 A.D., she caused serious repercussions. When Rome finally split from Orthodoxy in 1054 A.D., only a few centuries later the Protestants split from her, and then millions of Catholics left Roman Catholicism in the 20th century.

With loss of faith, many Catholics whom I have known have become atheistic or agnostic. My own father became an agnostic after graduating from a Jesuit high school.

Those who have lost their faith explained to me that it was the doctrines of Papal Infallibility, Papal Supremacy, and Immaculate Conception that were their undoing. Notice that all these Papal doctrines were introduced in modern times (on or after 1870).
That may well be true, but I kinda hesitate to talk about how Roman Catholic deviations from orthodoxy have led many to leave Christianity altogether when we have our own history of a whole Orthodox nation--no less than the "Holy" Russian empire that many associate with the Third Rome itself--embracing atheism and enforcing atheism upon its masses through pain of exile and death. What you're doing just seems hypocritically triumphalistic to me. AISI, this is one of those issues where we need to address the log in our own eye before we go about looking for the speck in our brother's.

Since you have been dominating this thread, and completely misreading/misunderstand many posters, I am going to absent myself. It is not worth it.

I was talking about defections in the USA, not Russia. I was talking about Roman Catholicism, not Orthodoxy. And remember that I was a Catholic for more than 30 years. Furthermore, I learned about Christ through Catholicism, and I praise the Lord and thank my parents for that gift of faith. I still have devout Catholics as friends. By the way, that little faith I had, helped me to survive my first year in Orthodoxy when I met many cradle "cultural" Orthodox who were very smug with the little faith they had.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: JoeS2 on March 31, 2013, 10:11:41 PM
With Rome falling into heresy and introducing novel doctrines starting in 800 A.D., she caused serious repercussions. When Rome finally split from Orthodoxy in 1054 A.D., only a few centuries later the Protestants split from her, and then millions of Catholics left Roman Catholicism in the 20th century.

With loss of faith, many Catholics whom I have known have become atheistic or agnostic. My own father became an agnostic after graduating from a Jesuit high school.

Those who have lost their faith explained to me that it was the doctrines of Papal Infallibility, Papal Supremacy, and Immaculate Conception that were their undoing. Notice that all these Papal doctrines were introduced in modern times (on or after 1870).
That may well be true, but I kinda hesitate to talk about how Roman Catholic deviations from orthodoxy have led many to leave Christianity altogether when we have our own history of a whole Orthodox nation--no less than the "Holy" Russian empire that many associate with the Third Rome itself--embracing atheism and enforcing atheism upon its masses through pain of exile and death. What you're doing just seems hypocritically triumphalistic to me. AISI, this is one of those issues where we need to address the log in our own eye before we go about looking for the speck in our brother's.

That may be true to a point but the revitalization of Orthodoxy in Russia is due to the 1000 years of Orthodox culture and religion which could not be wiped away.  I've been told that during the Soviet times folks would have painting of Stalin in their homes but when no one was around they would turn the Icon around which showed Icon of Our Lady or St. Nicholas.  The Babuskas. The grandmothers who had memories of the church prior to the Atheistic take over held the old religion in their minds and hearts and it is they who were able to pass on the faith to the younger generation in Russia.  Today, they are having trouble opening up new monastery churches in Moscow because they have too many.  Could you just imagine that during the height of Stalin's time?  Orthodoxy is alive and well and gaining support every day.  What they need to do is to not get too lax at this time and take it for granted that all will be well.  Remember, Christianity by its very nature , is always somewhere under persecution and will continue to be until the end of time.l
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: sedevacantist on March 31, 2013, 10:50:36 PM
if I take a quote out of context it's your job to prove it, just by saying I take a quote out of context doesn't make it so..sorry

Not every time a Church Father says Peter do they refer to the Pope.

...and if there are other good arguements for the papacy which I'm sure there are as I never stated these are the only arguments ..why don't you point them out

Perhaps because I hope to become Eastern Orthodox and I would be shooting myself in the foot by giving you good arguments for the Papacy?
I see, we have different goals you and I , I want the truth, the whole truth no matter where it lies, you on the other hand want to join a religion whereby even if it's not the total truth , you don't care, as long as you are accepted by the  orthodox, the arguements I presented are enough to prove what is the true catholic faith and no one here can refute them.
That your mind is made up and you're too stubborn to change it when presented with contrary arguments is readily apparent here.

Saying your arguments cannot be refuted... :-\ sounds rather presumptuous to me.
that your mind is made up and you're too stubborn to change it when presented with contrary arguments is readily apparent here.
are you saying your arguements can be refuted????
Would you like to try? ;)
I have stated the argument that St Peter was given primacy of the church with the following, I guess it's up to you to refute it
Jesus tells Peter to rule His sheep

John 21:15-17

Jesus tells Peter to feed my lambs, tend my sheep, feed my sheep. Jesus clearly gives St Peter authority over His flock, the members of His church. Some may ask why Jesus says the 1st time, feed my lambs, and the 2nd and 3rd times my sheep. The early church fathers understood this reference to lambs and sheep to differentiate between youngerand older members of the Church, or to distinguish between the faithful and the clergy . All of them are entrusted to St Peter.

 

Now what’s particularly important is that when Jesus says Feed my lambs etc..the 2nd  command of the 3 is the word poimaine in Greek. Many bibles will translate all 3 the same way, as “feed”, but the 2nd command is actually different from the 1st and 3rd.

 

John 21:15-17 “ He saith unto him, Feed (boske) my lambs…he saith unto him tend (poimane) my sheep…Jesus saith unto him, feed (boske) my sheep.”

 

In the 1st and 3rd commands that Jesus gives to Peter about His flock, the word in the greek is boske. Boske means to feed. But the word poimane, the 2nd command of Jesus to peter about the flock, means to rule. It is also translated as tend. Hence, Jesus not only commissioned Peter to feed His Church, but to rule it. It’s fascinating that a form of the very same word poimane, which Jesus uses about peter’s authority over the flock in John 21:16, is also used in revelation 2:27

 

Rev 2;27 “ And he shall rule (poimanei) with a rod of iron..”

 

That means that Peter not only has a primacy over Christ’s flock, but a primacy of jurisdiction to rule and govern the flock, contrary to what Eastern Orthodox would say.
Actually, many Eastern Orthodox would agree for the most part with what you have said thus far about the primacy of the Apostle Peter, so you're kinda preaching to the choir here.

The same word poimane is used in Rev 12:5 and elsewhere to indicate the power to rule.

 

 

St Basil the Great (330-379) AD , Against Eunomians, 4 “Peter…who on account of the pre-eminence of his faith received upon himself the building of the Church.”

 

St. Gregory Nazienzen, great Eastern father (329-389 A.D), oration 26”..of all the disciples of Christ, all of whom were great and deserving of the choice, one is called rock and entrusted with the foundations of the Church.”
I don't have a problem with the primacy of St. Peter among the Apostles, or even with the primacy of Rome as a spiritual authority within the early Church. What I don't see as evident in early Church history is any concept, such as the Roman Church teaches today, of the sovereignty of a universal papal monarch or papal infallibility even in certain restricted circumstances. Your job is to convince me that modern Roman teachings about the papacy can be traced back to the early Church's understanding of Rome's primacy without you reading anything backward into the early writings. Can you do this?
fair enough, I did get resistance from others in this forum about what you seem to acknowledge, that Peter was the rock, was given primacy etc so I sense you all are not in agreement..... now the split came in 1054 between our churches, so I'm not sure if bringing up anything the popes said after this date as being useful correct? for example I know vatican 1 is a no no for you guys but the break came way before,
let me know your thoughts on the following

When Pope Victor I (189-198) chose to excommunicate the Asian churches from the universal church and Rome for following their own tradition concerning the appropriate day to celebrate the Resurrection, a number of bishops were critical of him, but none challenged his authority to do so. St. Irenaeus urged him not “to cut off whole churches” and he relented, though he had called synods to consider the problem on his own authority. St. Irenaeus, writing his famous “Against Heresies” after 180 A.D. noted, It is possible, then, for everyone in every Church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the Apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the Apostles, and their successors to our own times . . . . The blessed Apostles [Peter and Paul] having founded and built up the Church [of Rome] handed over the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the epistle to Timothy [2 Tim 4:21] To him succeeded Anencletus; and after him in the third place, from the Apostles, Clement." These men were the first three popes.

Writing in 251 A.D., St. Cyprian of Carthage noted:

And again He says to him [Peter] after His resurrection: 'Feed my sheep' (John 21:17). On him He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep; and although He assigns a like power to all the Apostles, yet He founded a single chair, 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; but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all our 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 desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that his is in the Church?"
If Rome were to fall into heresy, would we be bound to follow her?
you are bound to follow the teachings of the true catholic church, not rome, so for me I can not follow the teachings of the heretical popes for the last 5 plus decades as I have absolute proof they are anti catholic, so I guess we have to go back to 1054 when the orthodox split with the roman catholic church, can you give me a brief summary of what you believe are the heresies of Rome that caused the split...my belief is we've had heretical popes throughout history but that doesn't mean you should not follow the true teachings of the magisterium, from the true popes
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: JoeS2 on March 31, 2013, 10:59:01 PM
Lets see here:  There was Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem and Constantinople.  Five Patriachates
 
Rome departs from this pentarchy and WE are the ones who split from you?.....Look at a 5 pointed star. take away one point you still have a four pointed star.  No, You left us is how I see it......Don't try to convince me otherwise.  
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: PeterTheAleut on March 31, 2013, 11:48:09 PM
if I take a quote out of context it's your job to prove it, just by saying I take a quote out of context doesn't make it so..sorry

Not every time a Church Father says Peter do they refer to the Pope.

...and if there are other good arguements for the papacy which I'm sure there are as I never stated these are the only arguments ..why don't you point them out

Perhaps because I hope to become Eastern Orthodox and I would be shooting myself in the foot by giving you good arguments for the Papacy?
I see, we have different goals you and I , I want the truth, the whole truth no matter where it lies, you on the other hand want to join a religion whereby even if it's not the total truth , you don't care, as long as you are accepted by the  orthodox, the arguements I presented are enough to prove what is the true catholic faith and no one here can refute them.
That your mind is made up and you're too stubborn to change it when presented with contrary arguments is readily apparent here.

Saying your arguments cannot be refuted... :-\ sounds rather presumptuous to me.
that your mind is made up and you're too stubborn to change it when presented with contrary arguments is readily apparent here.
are you saying your arguements can be refuted????
Would you like to try? ;)
I have stated the argument that St Peter was given primacy of the church with the following, I guess it's up to you to refute it
Jesus tells Peter to rule His sheep

John 21:15-17

Jesus tells Peter to feed my lambs, tend my sheep, feed my sheep. Jesus clearly gives St Peter authority over His flock, the members of His church. Some may ask why Jesus says the 1st time, feed my lambs, and the 2nd and 3rd times my sheep. The early church fathers understood this reference to lambs and sheep to differentiate between youngerand older members of the Church, or to distinguish between the faithful and the clergy . All of them are entrusted to St Peter.

 

Now what’s particularly important is that when Jesus says Feed my lambs etc..the 2nd  command of the 3 is the word poimaine in Greek. Many bibles will translate all 3 the same way, as “feed”, but the 2nd command is actually different from the 1st and 3rd.

 

John 21:15-17 “ He saith unto him, Feed (boske) my lambs…he saith unto him tend (poimane) my sheep…Jesus saith unto him, feed (boske) my sheep.”

 

In the 1st and 3rd commands that Jesus gives to Peter about His flock, the word in the greek is boske. Boske means to feed. But the word poimane, the 2nd command of Jesus to peter about the flock, means to rule. It is also translated as tend. Hence, Jesus not only commissioned Peter to feed His Church, but to rule it. It’s fascinating that a form of the very same word poimane, which Jesus uses about peter’s authority over the flock in John 21:16, is also used in revelation 2:27

 

Rev 2;27 “ And he shall rule (poimanei) with a rod of iron..”

 

That means that Peter not only has a primacy over Christ’s flock, but a primacy of jurisdiction to rule and govern the flock, contrary to what Eastern Orthodox would say.
Actually, many Eastern Orthodox would agree for the most part with what you have said thus far about the primacy of the Apostle Peter, so you're kinda preaching to the choir here.

The same word poimane is used in Rev 12:5 and elsewhere to indicate the power to rule.

 

 

St Basil the Great (330-379) AD , Against Eunomians, 4 “Peter…who on account of the pre-eminence of his faith received upon himself the building of the Church.”

 

St. Gregory Nazienzen, great Eastern father (329-389 A.D), oration 26”..of all the disciples of Christ, all of whom were great and deserving of the choice, one is called rock and entrusted with the foundations of the Church.”
I don't have a problem with the primacy of St. Peter among the Apostles, or even with the primacy of Rome as a spiritual authority within the early Church. What I don't see as evident in early Church history is any concept, such as the Roman Church teaches today, of the sovereignty of a universal papal monarch or papal infallibility even in certain restricted circumstances. Your job is to convince me that modern Roman teachings about the papacy can be traced back to the early Church's understanding of Rome's primacy without you reading anything backward into the early writings. Can you do this?
fair enough, I did get resistance from others in this forum about what you seem to acknowledge, that Peter was the rock, was given primacy etc so I sense you all are not in agreement..... now the split came in 1054 between our churches, so I'm not sure if bringing up anything the popes said after this date as being useful correct? for example I know vatican 1 is a no no for you guys but the break came way before,
let me know your thoughts on the following

When Pope Victor I (189-198) chose to excommunicate the Asian churches from the universal church and Rome for following their own tradition concerning the appropriate day to celebrate the Resurrection, a number of bishops were critical of him, but none challenged his authority to do so. St. Irenaeus urged him not “to cut off whole churches” and he relented, though he had called synods to consider the problem on his own authority. St. Irenaeus, writing his famous “Against Heresies” after 180 A.D. noted, It is possible, then, for everyone in every Church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the Apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the Apostles, and their successors to our own times . . . . The blessed Apostles [Peter and Paul] having founded and built up the Church [of Rome] handed over the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the epistle to Timothy [2 Tim 4:21] To him succeeded Anencletus; and after him in the third place, from the Apostles, Clement." These men were the first three popes.

Writing in 251 A.D., St. Cyprian of Carthage noted:

And again He says to him [Peter] after His resurrection: 'Feed my sheep' (John 21:17). On him He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep; and although He assigns a like power to all the Apostles, yet He founded a single chair, 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; but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all our 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 desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that his is in the Church?"
If Rome were to fall into heresy, would we be bound to follow her?
you are bound to follow the teachings of the true catholic church, not rome, so for me I can not follow the teachings of the heretical popes for the last 5 plus decades as I have absolute proof they are anti catholic, so I guess we have to go back to 1054 when the orthodox split with the roman catholic church, can you give me a brief summary of what you believe are the heresies of Rome that caused the split...my belief is we've had heretical popes throughout history but that doesn't mean you should not follow the true teachings of the magisterium, from the true popes
Well, for one, there's the papacy finally caving in to outside pressure to make a unilateral change to a creed that was drafted and ratified by an ecumenical council (i.e., the filioque clause). You may think that the papacy has authority even over an ecumenical council, but we Orthodox believe otherwise. Following the example of Acts 15, where the apostles and bishops gathered in council to address the burning doctrinal issue of the day--BTW, it was James, the local bishop of Jerusalem, NOT St. Peter, who had the last word in this council--the Orthodox Church expresses her mind most authoritatively in council. By asserting its jurisdiction even over the ecumenical councils, the papacy sinned against the unity of the Church as this was expressed in her councils. Not only this, but in asserting that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from one principle, the Latin Church departed from the traditional teaching that the Son and the Holy Spirit both find their source of life in the Father as from one Monarch.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Peter J on April 01, 2013, 09:48:00 AM
When I was first shown the Hapgood denunciations in the rite of Chrismation, I was shocked. However, Bishop Tikhon Fitzgerald wanted every Roman Catholic converting to Orthodoxy to pronounce a denunciation of the papacy because in his experience, if a RC convert to Orthodoxy did not denounce the papacy, then he most likely would return to Rome.

The no-fault-divorce mentality is quite prevalent in our society.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: sedevacantist on April 01, 2013, 07:38:10 PM
if I take a quote out of context it's your job to prove it, just by saying I take a quote out of context doesn't make it so..sorry

Not every time a Church Father says Peter do they refer to the Pope.

...and if there are other good arguements for the papacy which I'm sure there are as I never stated these are the only arguments ..why don't you point them out

Perhaps because I hope to become Eastern Orthodox and I would be shooting myself in the foot by giving you good arguments for the Papacy?
I see, we have different goals you and I , I want the truth, the whole truth no matter where it lies, you on the other hand want to join a religion whereby even if it's not the total truth , you don't care, as long as you are accepted by the  orthodox, the arguements I presented are enough to prove what is the true catholic faith and no one here can refute them.
That your mind is made up and you're too stubborn to change it when presented with contrary arguments is readily apparent here.

Saying your arguments cannot be refuted... :-\ sounds rather presumptuous to me.
that your mind is made up and you're too stubborn to change it when presented with contrary arguments is readily apparent here.
are you saying your arguements can be refuted????
Would you like to try? ;)
I have stated the argument that St Peter was given primacy of the church with the following, I guess it's up to you to refute it
Jesus tells Peter to rule His sheep

John 21:15-17

Jesus tells Peter to feed my lambs, tend my sheep, feed my sheep. Jesus clearly gives St Peter authority over His flock, the members of His church. Some may ask why Jesus says the 1st time, feed my lambs, and the 2nd and 3rd times my sheep. The early church fathers understood this reference to lambs and sheep to differentiate between youngerand older members of the Church, or to distinguish between the faithful and the clergy . All of them are entrusted to St Peter.

 

Now what’s particularly important is that when Jesus says Feed my lambs etc..the 2nd  command of the 3 is the word poimaine in Greek. Many bibles will translate all 3 the same way, as “feed”, but the 2nd command is actually different from the 1st and 3rd.

 

John 21:15-17 “ He saith unto him, Feed (boske) my lambs…he saith unto him tend (poimane) my sheep…Jesus saith unto him, feed (boske) my sheep.”

 

In the 1st and 3rd commands that Jesus gives to Peter about His flock, the word in the greek is boske. Boske means to feed. But the word poimane, the 2nd command of Jesus to peter about the flock, means to rule. It is also translated as tend. Hence, Jesus not only commissioned Peter to feed His Church, but to rule it. It’s fascinating that a form of the very same word poimane, which Jesus uses about peter’s authority over the flock in John 21:16, is also used in revelation 2:27

 

Rev 2;27 “ And he shall rule (poimanei) with a rod of iron..”

 

That means that Peter not only has a primacy over Christ’s flock, but a primacy of jurisdiction to rule and govern the flock, contrary to what Eastern Orthodox would say.
Actually, many Eastern Orthodox would agree for the most part with what you have said thus far about the primacy of the Apostle Peter, so you're kinda preaching to the choir here.

The same word poimane is used in Rev 12:5 and elsewhere to indicate the power to rule.

 

 

St Basil the Great (330-379) AD , Against Eunomians, 4 “Peter…who on account of the pre-eminence of his faith received upon himself the building of the Church.”

 

St. Gregory Nazienzen, great Eastern father (329-389 A.D), oration 26”..of all the disciples of Christ, all of whom were great and deserving of the choice, one is called rock and entrusted with the foundations of the Church.”
I don't have a problem with the primacy of St. Peter among the Apostles, or even with the primacy of Rome as a spiritual authority within the early Church. What I don't see as evident in early Church history is any concept, such as the Roman Church teaches today, of the sovereignty of a universal papal monarch or papal infallibility even in certain restricted circumstances. Your job is to convince me that modern Roman teachings about the papacy can be traced back to the early Church's understanding of Rome's primacy without you reading anything backward into the early writings. Can you do this?
fair enough, I did get resistance from others in this forum about what you seem to acknowledge, that Peter was the rock, was given primacy etc so I sense you all are not in agreement..... now the split came in 1054 between our churches, so I'm not sure if bringing up anything the popes said after this date as being useful correct? for example I know vatican 1 is a no no for you guys but the break came way before,
let me know your thoughts on the following

When Pope Victor I (189-198) chose to excommunicate the Asian churches from the universal church and Rome for following their own tradition concerning the appropriate day to celebrate the Resurrection, a number of bishops were critical of him, but none challenged his authority to do so. St. Irenaeus urged him not “to cut off whole churches” and he relented, though he had called synods to consider the problem on his own authority. St. Irenaeus, writing his famous “Against Heresies” after 180 A.D. noted, It is possible, then, for everyone in every Church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the Apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the Apostles, and their successors to our own times . . . . The blessed Apostles [Peter and Paul] having founded and built up the Church [of Rome] handed over the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the epistle to Timothy [2 Tim 4:21] To him succeeded Anencletus; and after him in the third place, from the Apostles, Clement." These men were the first three popes.

Writing in 251 A.D., St. Cyprian of Carthage noted:

And again He says to him [Peter] after His resurrection: 'Feed my sheep' (John 21:17). On him He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep; and although He assigns a like power to all the Apostles, yet He founded a single chair, 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; but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all our 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 desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that his is in the Church?"
If Rome were to fall into heresy, would we be bound to follow her?
you are bound to follow the teachings of the true catholic church, not rome, so for me I can not follow the teachings of the heretical popes for the last 5 plus decades as I have absolute proof they are anti catholic, so I guess we have to go back to 1054 when the orthodox split with the roman catholic church, can you give me a brief summary of what you believe are the heresies of Rome that caused the split...my belief is we've had heretical popes throughout history but that doesn't mean you should not follow the true teachings of the magisterium, from the true popes
Well, for one, there's the papacy finally caving in to outside pressure to make a unilateral change to a creed that was drafted and ratified by an ecumenical council (i.e., the filioque clause). You may think that the papacy has authority even over an ecumenical council, but we Orthodox believe otherwise. Following the example of Acts 15, where the apostles and bishops gathered in council to address the burning doctrinal issue of the day--BTW, it was James, the local bishop of Jerusalem, NOT St. Peter, who had the last word in this council--the Orthodox Church expresses her mind most authoritatively in council. By asserting its jurisdiction even over the ecumenical councils, the papacy sinned against the unity of the Church as this was expressed in her councils. Not only this, but in asserting that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from one principle, the Latin Church departed from the traditional teaching that the Son and the Holy Spirit both find their source of life in the Father as from one Monarch.
Acts 2:14 “But Peter,standing up with the eleven,lifted up his voice,and said unto them,Ye men of Judea,and all te that dwell at Jerusalem,be this known unto you,and hearken to my words.”

Notice again the language, “Peter standing up with th eleven.” This was the on the day of Pentecost,considered the birthday of the Church,when all the leaders of he Churchwere gathered. After he preached to the Jews,they asked the men (plural) what they should do. It was again Peter who answered everyone:

Acts 2:37-47

“Now when they heard this,they were pricked in their heart,and said unto Ptere and to the rest of the apostles. Men and brethren,what shall we do? Then Peter said unto them, Repent,and be baptized every one of youin the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins,and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost…and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls…And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.”

At a gathering with the high priest,the question was posed to them: by what power have you done this? St Peter again answered for the rest.

Acts4:6-10,12-“: And Annas the high priest,and  Caiphas,and John,and Alexander,and as many as were the kindred of the high priest,were gathered together at Jerusalem..they asked,By what power,or by what name,have ye done this? Then peter filled with the Holy Ghost,said unto them,Ye rulers of the people,and elders of Israel…Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is no name under heaven given among men,whereby we must be saved.”

In Acts 15,we read about the dissension concerning circumcision. Some were teaching that all gentile converts to the Gospel had to undergo circumcision to be saved. After much disputing,Paul and Barnabas went to the Apostles at Jerusalem to consult about thisquestion. The leaders of the Church held a council to discuss the issue. This council is sometimes called the first ecumenical council of the Christian Church.


Acts15:7-“And when there had been much disputing,Peter rose up,and said unto them,Men and brethren,ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us,that the Gentiles by mouth should hear the word of the gospel,and believe.”

After much disputing,St Peter rises up and delivers the first address to silence the argument and give the decision. That’s because he was the leader of the Church,the first pope. The Bible makes special  mention of the fact that when Peter spoke and gave his decision,the multitude kept silence:

Acts 15:12 “Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul…”

St James spoke after paul and Barnabas, for , as early Church historian Eusebius tells us,St James was left to be Bishop over the local church at Jerusalem.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: PeterTheAleut on April 01, 2013, 07:45:24 PM
In Acts 15,we read about the dissension concerning circumcision. Some were teaching that all gentile converts to the Gospel had to undergo circumcision to be saved. After much disputing,Paul and Barnabas went to the Apostles at Jerusalem to consult about thisquestion. The leaders of the Church held a council to discuss the issue. This council is sometimes called the first ecumenical council of the Christian Church.


Acts15:7-“And when there had been much disputing,Peter rose up,and said unto them,Men and brethren,ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us,that the Gentiles by mouth should hear the word of the gospel,and believe.”

After much disputing,St Peter rises up and delivers the first address to silence the argument and give the decision. That’s because he was the leader of the Church,the first pope. The Bible makes special  mention of the fact that when Peter spoke and gave his decision,the multitude kept silence:

Acts 15:12 “Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul…”

St James spoke after paul and Barnabas, for , as early Church historian Eusebius tells us,St James was left to be Bishop over the local church at Jerusalem.
You do realize that you're merely setting your interpretation of Acts 15 against mine? By what authority do you declare your's right and mine wrong?

BTW, considering that the discussion continued on even after St. Peter spoke and that someone else proclaimed the final definitive judgment on the matter shows that St. Peter's word was not deemed final or infallible. What is it St. James said? "Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, but should write to them to abstain from the pollutions of idols and from unchastity and from what is strangled and from blood." He spoke not as one deferring to another's authority, but as one who had the authority to proclaim his own judgment on the matter.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: sedevacantist on April 01, 2013, 07:51:26 PM
if I take a quote out of context it's your job to prove it, just by saying I take a quote out of context doesn't make it so..sorry

Not every time a Church Father says Peter do they refer to the Pope.

...and if there are other good arguements for the papacy which I'm sure there are as I never stated these are the only arguments ..why don't you point them out

Perhaps because I hope to become Eastern Orthodox and I would be shooting myself in the foot by giving you good arguments for the Papacy?
I see, we have different goals you and I , I want the truth, the whole truth no matter where it lies, you on the other hand want to join a religion whereby even if it's not the total truth , you don't care, as long as you are accepted by the  orthodox, the arguements I presented are enough to prove what is the true catholic faith and no one here can refute them.
That your mind is made up and you're too stubborn to change it when presented with contrary arguments is readily apparent here.

Saying your arguments cannot be refuted... :-\ sounds rather presumptuous to me.
that your mind is made up and you're too stubborn to change it when presented with contrary arguments is readily apparent here.
are you saying your arguements can be refuted????
Would you like to try? ;)
I have stated the argument that St Peter was given primacy of the church with the following, I guess it's up to you to refute it
Jesus tells Peter to rule His sheep

John 21:15-17

Jesus tells Peter to feed my lambs, tend my sheep, feed my sheep. Jesus clearly gives St Peter authority over His flock, the members of His church. Some may ask why Jesus says the 1st time, feed my lambs, and the 2nd and 3rd times my sheep. The early church fathers understood this reference to lambs and sheep to differentiate between youngerand older members of the Church, or to distinguish between the faithful and the clergy . All of them are entrusted to St Peter.

 

Now what’s particularly important is that when Jesus says Feed my lambs etc..the 2nd  command of the 3 is the word poimaine in Greek. Many bibles will translate all 3 the same way, as “feed”, but the 2nd command is actually different from the 1st and 3rd.

 

John 21:15-17 “ He saith unto him, Feed (boske) my lambs…he saith unto him tend (poimane) my sheep…Jesus saith unto him, feed (boske) my sheep.”

 

In the 1st and 3rd commands that Jesus gives to Peter about His flock, the word in the greek is boske. Boske means to feed. But the word poimane, the 2nd command of Jesus to peter about the flock, means to rule. It is also translated as tend. Hence, Jesus not only commissioned Peter to feed His Church, but to rule it. It’s fascinating that a form of the very same word poimane, which Jesus uses about peter’s authority over the flock in John 21:16, is also used in revelation 2:27

 

Rev 2;27 “ And he shall rule (poimanei) with a rod of iron..”

 

That means that Peter not only has a primacy over Christ’s flock, but a primacy of jurisdiction to rule and govern the flock, contrary to what Eastern Orthodox would say.
Actually, many Eastern Orthodox would agree for the most part with what you have said thus far about the primacy of the Apostle Peter, so you're kinda preaching to the choir here.

The same word poimane is used in Rev 12:5 and elsewhere to indicate the power to rule.

 

 

St Basil the Great (330-379) AD , Against Eunomians, 4 “Peter…who on account of the pre-eminence of his faith received upon himself the building of the Church.”

 

St. Gregory Nazienzen, great Eastern father (329-389 A.D), oration 26”..of all the disciples of Christ, all of whom were great and deserving of the choice, one is called rock and entrusted with the foundations of the Church.”
I don't have a problem with the primacy of St. Peter among the Apostles, or even with the primacy of Rome as a spiritual authority within the early Church. What I don't see as evident in early Church history is any concept, such as the Roman Church teaches today, of the sovereignty of a universal papal monarch or papal infallibility even in certain restricted circumstances. Your job is to convince me that modern Roman teachings about the papacy can be traced back to the early Church's understanding of Rome's primacy without you reading anything backward into the early writings. Can you do this?
fair enough, I did get resistance from others in this forum about what you seem to acknowledge, that Peter was the rock, was given primacy etc so I sense you all are not in agreement..... now the split came in 1054 between our churches, so I'm not sure if bringing up anything the popes said after this date as being useful correct? for example I know vatican 1 is a no no for you guys but the break came way before,
let me know your thoughts on the following

When Pope Victor I (189-198) chose to excommunicate the Asian churches from the universal church and Rome for following their own tradition concerning the appropriate day to celebrate the Resurrection, a number of bishops were critical of him, but none challenged his authority to do so. St. Irenaeus urged him not “to cut off whole churches” and he relented, though he had called synods to consider the problem on his own authority. St. Irenaeus, writing his famous “Against Heresies” after 180 A.D. noted, It is possible, then, for everyone in every Church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the Apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the Apostles, and their successors to our own times . . . . The blessed Apostles [Peter and Paul] having founded and built up the Church [of Rome] handed over the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the epistle to Timothy [2 Tim 4:21] To him succeeded Anencletus; and after him in the third place, from the Apostles, Clement." These men were the first three popes.

Writing in 251 A.D., St. Cyprian of Carthage noted:

And again He says to him [Peter] after His resurrection: 'Feed my sheep' (John 21:17). On him He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep; and although He assigns a like power to all the Apostles, yet He founded a single chair, 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; but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all our 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 desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that his is in the Church?"
If Rome were to fall into heresy, would we be bound to follow her?
you are bound to follow the teachings of the true catholic church, not rome, so for me I can not follow the teachings of the heretical popes for the last 5 plus decades as I have absolute proof they are anti catholic, so I guess we have to go back to 1054 when the orthodox split with the roman catholic church, can you give me a brief summary of what you believe are the heresies of Rome that caused the split...my belief is we've had heretical popes throughout history but that doesn't mean you should not follow the true teachings of the magisterium, from the true popes
Well, for one, there's the papacy finally caving in to outside pressure to make a unilateral change to a creed that was drafted and ratified by an ecumenical council (i.e., the filioque clause). You may think that the papacy has authority even over an ecumenical council, but we Orthodox believe otherwise. Following the example of Acts 15, where the apostles and bishops gathered in council to address the burning doctrinal issue of the day--BTW, it was James, the local bishop of Jerusalem, NOT St. Peter, who had the last word in this council--the Orthodox Church expresses her mind most authoritatively in council. By asserting its jurisdiction even over the ecumenical councils, the papacy sinned against the unity of the Church as this was expressed in her councils. Not only this, but in asserting that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from one principle, the Latin Church departed from the traditional teaching that the Son and the Holy Spirit both find their source of life in the Father as from one Monarch.

here's an interesting take on the filioque issue by the Dimonds
http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/the_catholic_church_salvation_faith_and_baptism.php/

 In 381 the Council of Constantinople defined that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father.  The Council did not say that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son.  The omission of the words “and the Son” (filioque in Latin) caused countless millions to erroneously conclude that the Holy Ghost does not proceed from the Son, a heresy that was later condemned by the Church.  If the Council of Constantinople had simply included that little statement, that the Holy Ghost also proceeds from the Son, it would have eliminated over a thousand years of controversy with the Eastern Schismatics – a controversy which still continues to this day.  That little phrase (“and the Son”), if it had been included in Constantinople, probably would have stopped millions of people from leaving the Catholic Church and embracing Eastern Orthodoxy, because the Eastern Orthodox thought and still think that the Catholic Church’s teaching that the Holy Ghost proceeds from Father and the Son is contrary to the Council of Constantinople, which only said that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father.

 

     So, did the Council of Constantinople err?  Of course not.  But could Constantinople have been more clear by adding that little phrase which would have eliminated a controversy?  Absolutely.  So why did God allow this controversy to occur, when He could have prevented it by simply inspiring the council fathers at Constantinople in 381 to include that tiny phrase?  The answer is that there must be heresies.

 

1 Cor. 11:19: “For there must be also heresies: that they also, who are approved, may be manifest among you.”

 

     God allows heresies to arise in order to see who will believe the truth and who will not, to see who will look at the truth sincerely and who will pervert things to suit his own heretical desires.  God never allows His councils, such as Constantinople and Trent, to teach any error, but He can allow the truth to be stated in ways that give people the opportunity to twist and pervert the meaning of the words used if they so desire (no pun intended), as the Eastern Schismatics did in regard to Constantinople’s omission of the phrase: and the Son.

 

      In fact, it doesn’t even matter if some of the council fathers at Constantinople believed that the Holy Ghost does not proceed from the Son; and there were probably some who didn’t believe that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son.  All that matters is what the Council of Constantinople actually declared, a declaration which says nothing contrary to the fact that the Holy Ghost does proceed from the Son.  The intentions of the Council Fathers at Constantinople or any other Council have nothing to do with Papal Infallibility.  All that matters is what the actual dogma approved by the pope declares or finalizes in the Profession of Faith.



Fixed quote tags  -PtA
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: sedevacantist on April 01, 2013, 07:59:04 PM
if I take a quote out of context it's your job to prove it, just by saying I take a quote out of context doesn't make it so..sorry

Not every time a Church Father says Peter do they refer to the Pope.

...and if there are other good arguements for the papacy which I'm sure there are as I never stated these are the only arguments ..why don't you point them out

Perhaps because I hope to become Eastern Orthodox and I would be shooting myself in the foot by giving you good arguments for the Papacy?
I see, we have different goals you and I , I want the truth, the whole truth no matter where it lies, you on the other hand want to join a religion whereby even if it's not the total truth , you don't care, as long as you are accepted by the  orthodox, the arguements I presented are enough to prove what is the true catholic faith and no one here can refute them.
That your mind is made up and you're too stubborn to change it when presented with contrary arguments is readily apparent here.

Saying your arguments cannot be refuted... :-\ sounds rather presumptuous to me.
that your mind is made up and you're too stubborn to change it when presented with contrary arguments is readily apparent here.
are you saying your arguements can be refuted????
Would you like to try? ;)
I have stated the argument that St Peter was given primacy of the church with the following, I guess it's up to you to refute it
Jesus tells Peter to rule His sheep

John 21:15-17

Jesus tells Peter to feed my lambs, tend my sheep, feed my sheep. Jesus clearly gives St Peter authority over His flock, the members of His church. Some may ask why Jesus says the 1st time, feed my lambs, and the 2nd and 3rd times my sheep. The early church fathers understood this reference to lambs and sheep to differentiate between youngerand older members of the Church, or to distinguish between the faithful and the clergy . All of them are entrusted to St Peter.

 

Now what’s particularly important is that when Jesus says Feed my lambs etc..the 2nd  command of the 3 is the word poimaine in Greek. Many bibles will translate all 3 the same way, as “feed”, but the 2nd command is actually different from the 1st and 3rd.

 

John 21:15-17 “ He saith unto him, Feed (boske) my lambs…he saith unto him tend (poimane) my sheep…Jesus saith unto him, feed (boske) my sheep.”

 

In the 1st and 3rd commands that Jesus gives to Peter about His flock, the word in the greek is boske. Boske means to feed. But the word poimane, the 2nd command of Jesus to peter about the flock, means to rule. It is also translated as tend. Hence, Jesus not only commissioned Peter to feed His Church, but to rule it. It’s fascinating that a form of the very same word poimane, which Jesus uses about peter’s authority over the flock in John 21:16, is also used in revelation 2:27

 

Rev 2;27 “ And he shall rule (poimanei) with a rod of iron..”

 

That means that Peter not only has a primacy over Christ’s flock, but a primacy of jurisdiction to rule and govern the flock, contrary to what Eastern Orthodox would say.
Actually, many Eastern Orthodox would agree for the most part with what you have said thus far about the primacy of the Apostle Peter, so you're kinda preaching to the choir here.

The same word poimane is used in Rev 12:5 and elsewhere to indicate the power to rule.

 

 

St Basil the Great (330-379) AD , Against Eunomians, 4 “Peter…who on account of the pre-eminence of his faith received upon himself the building of the Church.”

 

St. Gregory Nazienzen, great Eastern father (329-389 A.D), oration 26”..of all the disciples of Christ, all of whom were great and deserving of the choice, one is called rock and entrusted with the foundations of the Church.”
I don't have a problem with the primacy of St. Peter among the Apostles, or even with the primacy of Rome as a spiritual authority within the early Church. What I don't see as evident in early Church history is any concept, such as the Roman Church teaches today, of the sovereignty of a universal papal monarch or papal infallibility even in certain restricted circumstances. Your job is to convince me that modern Roman teachings about the papacy can be traced back to the early Church's understanding of Rome's primacy without you reading anything backward into the early writings. Can you do this?
fair enough, I did get resistance from others in this forum about what you seem to acknowledge, that Peter was the rock, was given primacy etc so I sense you all are not in agreement..... now the split came in 1054 between our churches, so I'm not sure if bringing up anything the popes said after this date as being useful correct? for example I know vatican 1 is a no no for you guys but the break came way before,
let me know your thoughts on the following

When Pope Victor I (189-198) chose to excommunicate the Asian churches from the universal church and Rome for following their own tradition concerning the appropriate day to celebrate the Resurrection, a number of bishops were critical of him, but none challenged his authority to do so. St. Irenaeus urged him not “to cut off whole churches” and he relented, though he had called synods to consider the problem on his own authority. St. Irenaeus, writing his famous “Against Heresies” after 180 A.D. noted, It is possible, then, for everyone in every Church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the Apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the Apostles, and their successors to our own times . . . . The blessed Apostles [Peter and Paul] having founded and built up the Church [of Rome] handed over the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the epistle to Timothy [2 Tim 4:21] To him succeeded Anencletus; and after him in the third place, from the Apostles, Clement." These men were the first three popes.

Writing in 251 A.D., St. Cyprian of Carthage noted:

And again He says to him [Peter] after His resurrection: 'Feed my sheep' (John 21:17). On him He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep; and although He assigns a like power to all the Apostles, yet He founded a single chair, 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; but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all our 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 desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that his is in the Church?"
If Rome were to fall into heresy, would we be bound to follow her?
you are bound to follow the teachings of the true catholic church, not rome, so for me I can not follow the teachings of the heretical popes for the last 5 plus decades as I have absolute proof they are anti catholic, so I guess we have to go back to 1054 when the orthodox split with the roman catholic church, can you give me a brief summary of what you believe are the heresies of Rome that caused the split...my belief is we've had heretical popes throughout history but that doesn't mean you should not follow the true teachings of the magisterium, from the true popes
Well, for one, there's the papacy finally caving in to outside pressure to make a unilateral change to a creed that was drafted and ratified by an ecumenical council (i.e., the filioque clause). You may think that the papacy has authority even over an ecumenical council, but we Orthodox believe otherwise. Following the example of Acts 15, where the apostles and bishops gathered in council to address the burning doctrinal issue of the day--BTW, it was James, the local bishop of Jerusalem, NOT St. Peter, who had the last word in this council--the Orthodox Church expresses her mind most authoritatively in council. By asserting its jurisdiction even over the ecumenical councils, the papacy sinned against the unity of the Church as this was expressed in her councils. Not only this, but in asserting that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from one principle, the Latin Church departed from the traditional teaching that the Son and the Holy Spirit both find their source of life in the Father as from one Monarch.

some interesting info info from wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filioque_clause


Church fathers

The writings of the early Church Fathers, both eastern and western, sometimes speak of the Holy Spirit as proceeding or spirating from the Father and the Son.

Before the creed of 381 became known in the West and even before it was adopted by the First Council of Constantinople, Christian writers in the West, of whom Tertullian (c. 160 – c. 220), Jerome (347–420), Ambrose (c. 338 – 397) and Augustine (354–430) are representatives, spoke of the Spirit as coming from the Father and the Son,[10] while the expression “from the Father through the Son” is also found among them.[20][21]

Tertullian, writing at the beginning of the third century, emphasizes that Father, Son and Holy Spirit all share a single divine substance, quality and power,[22] which he conceives of as flowing forth from the Father and being transmitted by the Son to the Spirit.[23]

One Christian source for Augustine was Marius Victorinus (c. 280-365), who in his arguments against Arians strongly connected the Son and the Spirit.

Hilary of Poitiers, in the mid-fourth century, speaks of the Spirit as "coming forth from the Father" and being "sent by the Son" (De Trinitate 12.55); as being "from the Father through the Son" (ibid. 12.56); and as "having the Father and the Son as his source" (ibid. 2.29); in another passage, Hilary points to John 16.15 (where Jesus says: 'All things that the Father has are mine; therefore I said that [the Spirit] shall take from what is mine and declare it to you'), and wonders aloud whether "to receive from the Son is the same thing as to proceed from the Father" (ibid. 8.20).

Ambrose of Milan, writing in the 380s, openly asserts that the Spirit "proceeds from (procedit a) the Father and the Son", without ever being separated from either (On the Holy Spirit 1.11.20).

"None of these writers, however, makes the Spirit’s mode of origin the object of special reflection; all are concerned, rather, to emphasize the equality of status of all three divine persons as God, and all acknowledge that the Father alone is the source of God’s eternal being."[15]

As for the Greek Fathers, there is, according to A. Edward Siecienski, no citable basis for the claim historically made by both sides, that they explicitly either supported or denied the later theologies concerning the procession of the Spirit from the Son. However, they did enunciate important principles later invoked in support of one theology or the other. These included the insistence on the unique hypostatic properties of each Divine Person, in particular the Father's property of being, within the Trinity, the one cause, while they also recognized that the Persons, through distinct, cannot be separated, and that not only the sending of the Spirit to creatures but also the Spirit's eternal flowing forth (προϊέναι) from the Father within the Trinity is "through the Son" (διὰ τοῦ Υἱοῦ).[24]

Cyril of Alexandria, in particular, provides "a host of quotations that seemingly speak of the Spirit's 'procession' from both the Father and the Son". In these passages he uses the Greek verbs προϊέναι (like the Latin procedere) and προχεῖσθαι (flow from), not the verb ἐκπορεύεσθαι, the verb that appears in the Greek text of the Nicene Creed.[25]

Siecienski remarked that, "while the Greek fathers were still striving to find language capable of expressing the mysterious nature of the Son's relationship to the Spirit, Latin theologians, even during Cyril's lifetime, had already found their answer - the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (ex Patre et Filio procedentem). The degree to which this teaching was compatible with, or contradictory to, the emerging Greek tradition remains, sixteen centuries later, subject to debate."[26]

Yves Congar commented, "'The walls of separation do not reach as high as heaven.'"[27] And Aidan Nichols remarked that "the Filioque controversy is, in fact, a casualty of the theological pluralism of the patristic Church", on the one hand the Latin and Alexandrian tradition, on the other the Cappadocian and later Byzantine tradition.[28]
Procession of the Holy Spirit

As early as the fourth century, a distinction was made, in connection with the Trinity, between the two Greek verbs ἐκπορεύεσθαι (the verb used in the original Greek text of the 381 Nicene Creed) and προϊέναι. In his Oration on the Holy Lights (XXXIX), Saint Gregory of Nazianzus wrote: "The Holy Ghost is truly Spirit, coming forth (προϊέναι) from the Father indeed, but not after the manner of the Son, for it is not by Generation but by Procession (ἐκπορεύεσθαι)".[29][30]

That the Holy Spirit "proceeds" from the Father and the Son in the sense of the Latin word procedere and the Greek προϊέναι (as opposed to the Greek ἐκπορεύεσθαι) was taught by the early fifth century by Saint Cyril of Alexandria in the East[10][31] The Athanasian Creed, probably of the middle of the fifth century,[32] and a dogmatic epistle of Pope Leo I,[33][34] who declared in 446 that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both Father and Son.[35]

Although the Eastern Fathers were aware that in the West the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son was taught, they did not generally regard it as heretical:[36] "a whole series of Western writers, including popes who are venerated as saints by the Eastern church, confess the procession of the Holy Spirit also from the Son; and it is even more striking that there is virtually no disagreement with this theory."[37]

The phrase Filioque first appears as an anti-Arian[38][39] interpolation in the Creed at the Third Council of Toledo (589), at which Visigothic Spain renounced Arianism, accepting Catholic Christianity. The addition was confirmed by subsequent local councils in Toledo and soon spread throughout the West, not only in Spain, but also in the kingdom of the Franks, who had adopted the Catholic faith in 496,[40] and in England, where the Council of Hatfield imposed it in 680 as a response to Monothelitism.[41] However, it was not adopted in Rome.

In the Vulgate the Latin verb procedere, which appears in the Filioque passage of the Creed in Latin, is used to translate several Greek verbs. While one of those verbs, ἐκπορεύεσθαι, the one in the corresponding phrase in the Creed in Greek, "was beginning to take on a particular meaning in Greek theology designating the Spirit's unique mode of coming-to-be ... procedere had no such connotations".[42]

Although Hilary of Poitiers is often cited as one of "the chief patristic source(s) for the Latin teaching on the filioque", Siecienski says that "there is also reason for questioning Hilary's support for the filioque as later theology would understand it, especially given the ambiguous nature of (Hilary's) language as it concerns the procession."[43]

However, a number of Latin Church Fathers of the 4th and 5th centuries explicitly speak of the Holy Spirit as proceeding "from the Father and the Son", the phrase in the present Latin version of the Nicene Creed. Examples are what is called the creed of Pope Damasus I,[44] Ambrose of Milan ("one of the earliest witnesses to the explicit affirmation of the Spirit's procession from the Father and the Son"),[45] Augustine of Hippo (whose writings on the Trinity "became the foundation of subsequent Latin trinitarian theology and later served as the foundation for the doctrine of the filioque".[46] and Pope Leo I (but Easterners have argued that his acceptance of the Council of Chalcedon, with its reaffirmation of the Nicene Creed, which in the original text is without the Filioque, proves that he questioned the Filioque, something that his successors never did).[47]

Thereafter, Eucherius of Lyon, Gennadius of Massilia, Boethius, Agnellus, Bishop of Ravenna, Cassiodorus, Gregory of Tours are witnesses that the idea that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son was well established as part of the (Western) Church's faith, before Latin theologians began to concern themselves about how the Spirit proceeds from the Son.[48]

Pope Gregory the Great is usually counted as teaching the Spirit's procession from the Son, although Byzantine theologians, quoting from Greek translations of his work rather than the original, present him as a witness against it, and although he sometimes speaks of the Holy Spirit as proceeding from the Father without mentioning the Son. Siecienski says that, in view of the widespread acceptance by then that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, it would be strange if Gregory did not advocate the teaching, "even if he did not understand the filioque as later Latin theology would - that is, in terms of a 'double procession'".[49]
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Cyrillic on April 01, 2013, 08:01:05 PM
Sedevacantist. Could you please do me a favor and read St. Photius the Great's Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit (http://www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/photios_mystagogy.html) when you have some free time. Thanks.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: sedevacantist on April 01, 2013, 08:03:25 PM
In Acts 15,we read about the dissension concerning circumcision. Some were teaching that all gentile converts to the Gospel had to undergo circumcision to be saved. After much disputing,Paul and Barnabas went to the Apostles at Jerusalem to consult about thisquestion. The leaders of the Church held a council to discuss the issue. This council is sometimes called the first ecumenical council of the Christian Church.


Acts15:7-“And when there had been much disputing,Peter rose up,and said unto them,Men and brethren,ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us,that the Gentiles by mouth should hear the word of the gospel,and believe.”

After much disputing,St Peter rises up and delivers the first address to silence the argument and give the decision. That’s because he was the leader of the Church,the first pope. The Bible makes special  mention of the fact that when Peter spoke and gave his decision,the multitude kept silence:

Acts 15:12 “Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul…”

St James spoke after paul and Barnabas, for , as early Church historian Eusebius tells us,St James was left to be Bishop over the local church at Jerusalem.
You do realize that you're merely setting your interpretation of Acts 15 against mine? By what authority do you declare your's right and mine wrong?

BTW, considering that the discussion continued on even after St. Peter spoke and that someone else proclaimed the final definitive judgment on the matter shows that St. Peter's word was not deemed final or infallible. What is it St. James said? "Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, but should write to them to abstain from the pollutions of idols and from unchastity and from what is strangled and from blood." He spoke not as one deferring to another's authority, but as one who had the authority to proclaim his own judgment on the matter.
I'll admit that Acts 15 isn't the clearest example of proving papal supremacy,but it surely doesn't disprove it... I'm merely countering your interpretaion with the Catholic view....I've proven papal supremacy already with other passages
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: PeterTheAleut on April 01, 2013, 08:11:15 PM
if I take a quote out of context it's your job to prove it, just by saying I take a quote out of context doesn't make it so..sorry

Not every time a Church Father says Peter do they refer to the Pope.

...and if there are other good arguements for the papacy which I'm sure there are as I never stated these are the only arguments ..why don't you point them out

Perhaps because I hope to become Eastern Orthodox and I would be shooting myself in the foot by giving you good arguments for the Papacy?
I see, we have different goals you and I , I want the truth, the whole truth no matter where it lies, you on the other hand want to join a religion whereby even if it's not the total truth , you don't care, as long as you are accepted by the  orthodox, the arguements I presented are enough to prove what is the true catholic faith and no one here can refute them.
That your mind is made up and you're too stubborn to change it when presented with contrary arguments is readily apparent here.

Saying your arguments cannot be refuted... :-\ sounds rather presumptuous to me.
that your mind is made up and you're too stubborn to change it when presented with contrary arguments is readily apparent here.
are you saying your arguements can be refuted????
Would you like to try? ;)
I have stated the argument that St Peter was given primacy of the church with the following, I guess it's up to you to refute it
Jesus tells Peter to rule His sheep

John 21:15-17

Jesus tells Peter to feed my lambs, tend my sheep, feed my sheep. Jesus clearly gives St Peter authority over His flock, the members of His church. Some may ask why Jesus says the 1st time, feed my lambs, and the 2nd and 3rd times my sheep. The early church fathers understood this reference to lambs and sheep to differentiate between youngerand older members of the Church, or to distinguish between the faithful and the clergy . All of them are entrusted to St Peter.

 

Now what’s particularly important is that when Jesus says Feed my lambs etc..the 2nd  command of the 3 is the word poimaine in Greek. Many bibles will translate all 3 the same way, as “feed”, but the 2nd command is actually different from the 1st and 3rd.

 

John 21:15-17 “ He saith unto him, Feed (boske) my lambs…he saith unto him tend (poimane) my sheep…Jesus saith unto him, feed (boske) my sheep.”

 

In the 1st and 3rd commands that Jesus gives to Peter about His flock, the word in the greek is boske. Boske means to feed. But the word poimane, the 2nd command of Jesus to peter about the flock, means to rule. It is also translated as tend. Hence, Jesus not only commissioned Peter to feed His Church, but to rule it. It’s fascinating that a form of the very same word poimane, which Jesus uses about peter’s authority over the flock in John 21:16, is also used in revelation 2:27

 

Rev 2;27 “ And he shall rule (poimanei) with a rod of iron..”

 

That means that Peter not only has a primacy over Christ’s flock, but a primacy of jurisdiction to rule and govern the flock, contrary to what Eastern Orthodox would say.
Actually, many Eastern Orthodox would agree for the most part with what you have said thus far about the primacy of the Apostle Peter, so you're kinda preaching to the choir here.

The same word poimane is used in Rev 12:5 and elsewhere to indicate the power to rule.

 

 

St Basil the Great (330-379) AD , Against Eunomians, 4 “Peter…who on account of the pre-eminence of his faith received upon himself the building of the Church.”

 

St. Gregory Nazienzen, great Eastern father (329-389 A.D), oration 26”..of all the disciples of Christ, all of whom were great and deserving of the choice, one is called rock and entrusted with the foundations of the Church.”
I don't have a problem with the primacy of St. Peter among the Apostles, or even with the primacy of Rome as a spiritual authority within the early Church. What I don't see as evident in early Church history is any concept, such as the Roman Church teaches today, of the sovereignty of a universal papal monarch or papal infallibility even in certain restricted circumstances. Your job is to convince me that modern Roman teachings about the papacy can be traced back to the early Church's understanding of Rome's primacy without you reading anything backward into the early writings. Can you do this?
fair enough, I did get resistance from others in this forum about what you seem to acknowledge, that Peter was the rock, was given primacy etc so I sense you all are not in agreement..... now the split came in 1054 between our churches, so I'm not sure if bringing up anything the popes said after this date as being useful correct? for example I know vatican 1 is a no no for you guys but the break came way before,
let me know your thoughts on the following

When Pope Victor I (189-198) chose to excommunicate the Asian churches from the universal church and Rome for following their own tradition concerning the appropriate day to celebrate the Resurrection, a number of bishops were critical of him, but none challenged his authority to do so. St. Irenaeus urged him not “to cut off whole churches” and he relented, though he had called synods to consider the problem on his own authority. St. Irenaeus, writing his famous “Against Heresies” after 180 A.D. noted, It is possible, then, for everyone in every Church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the Apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the Apostles, and their successors to our own times . . . . The blessed Apostles [Peter and Paul] having founded and built up the Church [of Rome] handed over the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the epistle to Timothy [2 Tim 4:21] To him succeeded Anencletus; and after him in the third place, from the Apostles, Clement." These men were the first three popes.

Writing in 251 A.D., St. Cyprian of Carthage noted:

And again He says to him [Peter] after His resurrection: 'Feed my sheep' (John 21:17). On him He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep; and although He assigns a like power to all the Apostles, yet He founded a single chair, 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; but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all our 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 desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that his is in the Church?"
If Rome were to fall into heresy, would we be bound to follow her?
you are bound to follow the teachings of the true catholic church, not rome, so for me I can not follow the teachings of the heretical popes for the last 5 plus decades as I have absolute proof they are anti catholic, so I guess we have to go back to 1054 when the orthodox split with the roman catholic church, can you give me a brief summary of what you believe are the heresies of Rome that caused the split...my belief is we've had heretical popes throughout history but that doesn't mean you should not follow the true teachings of the magisterium, from the true popes
Well, for one, there's the papacy finally caving in to outside pressure to make a unilateral change to a creed that was drafted and ratified by an ecumenical council (i.e., the filioque clause). You may think that the papacy has authority even over an ecumenical council, but we Orthodox believe otherwise. Following the example of Acts 15, where the apostles and bishops gathered in council to address the burning doctrinal issue of the day--BTW, it was James, the local bishop of Jerusalem, NOT St. Peter, who had the last word in this council--the Orthodox Church expresses her mind most authoritatively in council. By asserting its jurisdiction even over the ecumenical councils, the papacy sinned against the unity of the Church as this was expressed in her councils. Not only this, but in asserting that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from one principle, the Latin Church departed from the traditional teaching that the Son and the Holy Spirit both find their source of life in the Father as from one Monarch.

here's an interesting take on the filioque issue by the Dimonds
http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/the_catholic_church_salvation_faith_and_baptism.php/
Can you cite an authority other than the Dimonds, like maybe someone whose authority we Orthodox actually recognize?

In 381 the Council of Constantinople defined that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father.  The Council did not say that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son.  The omission of the words “and the Son” (filioque in Latin) caused countless millions to erroneously conclude that the Holy Ghost does not proceed from the Son, a heresy that was later condemned by the Church.  If the Council of Constantinople had simply included that little statement, that the Holy Ghost also proceeds from the Son, it would have eliminated over a thousand years of controversy with the Eastern Schismatics – a controversy which still continues to this day.  That little phrase (“and the Son”), if it had been included in Constantinople, probably would have stopped millions of people from leaving the Catholic Church and embracing Eastern Orthodoxy, because the Eastern Orthodox thought and still think that the Catholic Church’s teaching that the Holy Ghost proceeds from Father and the Son is contrary to the Council of Constantinople, which only said that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father.

 

     So, did the Council of Constantinople err?  Of course not.  But could Constantinople have been more clear by adding that little phrase which would have eliminated a controversy?  Absolutely.  So why did God allow this controversy to occur, when He could have prevented it by simply inspiring the council fathers at Constantinople in 381 to include that tiny phrase?  The answer is that there must be heresies.

 

1 Cor. 11:19: “For there must be also heresies: that they also, who are approved, may be manifest among you.”

 

     God allows heresies to arise in order to see who will believe the truth and who will not, to see who will look at the truth sincerely and who will pervert things to suit his own heretical desires.  God never allows His councils, such as Constantinople and Trent, to teach any error, but He can allow the truth to be stated in ways that give people the opportunity to twist and pervert the meaning of the words used if they so desire (no pun intended), as the Eastern Schismatics did in regard to Constantinople’s omission of the phrase: and the Son.

 

      In fact, it doesn’t even matter if some of the council fathers at Constantinople believed that the Holy Ghost does not proceed from the Son; and there were probably some who didn’t believe that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son.  All that matters is what the Council of Constantinople actually declared, a declaration which says nothing contrary to the fact that the Holy Ghost does proceed from the Son.  The intentions of the Council Fathers at Constantinople or any other Council have nothing to do with Papal Infallibility.  All that matters is what the actual dogma approved by the pope declares or finalizes in the Profession of Faith.



Fixed quote tags  -PtA
Yes, it has been said by some on your side that we fell into heresy by omitting the filioque from the Creed. ::) Do you have any evidence that the Church actually taught that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son, in spite of Christ's own statement to the contrary (see Chapter 14 or 16 of the Gospel of John)? To convict us of deviating from the truth, you have to first establish that the Church once taught something else prior to our deviation.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Peter J on April 01, 2013, 08:13:25 PM
I've been torn between the CC and OC for quite awhile now. I'm a convert to the CC, but I felt a strong pull to the OC even before becoming Catholic. Since then, I've struggled to make sense of it all.

I do not understand the Catholic veneration of the papal office. I hear lots of comments about how regardless of what he may have said or done or taught as Bishop that he is Pope now and they support him no matter what, because he is reserved from teaching false doctrine or he will no longer be Pope. People actually believe that God will strike him down before he would have the opportunity to promulgate something false.  ???

I'm now starting to see the problem with declaring something ( a council) or someone ( the Pope) infallible at the outset instead of after the fact when the orthodoxy of what is declared can be confirmed or rejected.

Universal jurisdiction seems to be naturally tied to papal infallibility and creates the situation where submission to Rome is more important than orthodox belief. Hence we have a bunch of people that are considered Catholic but don't agree with Catholic teaching on many issues. it's no longer about orthodox belief it's all about being in communion with the Pope. Because once a Catholic always a Catholic.

None of this makes any sense to me and now I realize I never should have become Catholic in the first place.

I think you picked the wrong thread to post this on.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: PeterTheAleut on April 01, 2013, 08:14:25 PM
In Acts 15,we read about the dissension concerning circumcision. Some were teaching that all gentile converts to the Gospel had to undergo circumcision to be saved. After much disputing,Paul and Barnabas went to the Apostles at Jerusalem to consult about thisquestion. The leaders of the Church held a council to discuss the issue. This council is sometimes called the first ecumenical council of the Christian Church.


Acts15:7-“And when there had been much disputing,Peter rose up,and said unto them,Men and brethren,ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us,that the Gentiles by mouth should hear the word of the gospel,and believe.”

After much disputing,St Peter rises up and delivers the first address to silence the argument and give the decision. That’s because he was the leader of the Church,the first pope. The Bible makes special  mention of the fact that when Peter spoke and gave his decision,the multitude kept silence:

Acts 15:12 “Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul…”

St James spoke after paul and Barnabas, for , as early Church historian Eusebius tells us,St James was left to be Bishop over the local church at Jerusalem.
You do realize that you're merely setting your interpretation of Acts 15 against mine? By what authority do you declare your's right and mine wrong?

BTW, considering that the discussion continued on even after St. Peter spoke and that someone else proclaimed the final definitive judgment on the matter shows that St. Peter's word was not deemed final or infallible. What is it St. James said? "Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, but should write to them to abstain from the pollutions of idols and from unchastity and from what is strangled and from blood." He spoke not as one deferring to another's authority, but as one who had the authority to proclaim his own judgment on the matter.
I'll admit that Acts 15 isn't the clearest example of proving papal supremacy,but it surely doesn't disprove it... I'm merely countering your interpretaion with the Catholic view....I've proven papal supremacy already with other passages
No you haven't.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: sedevacantist on April 01, 2013, 08:59:49 PM
if I take a quote out of context it's your job to prove it, just by saying I take a quote out of context doesn't make it so..sorry

Not every time a Church Father says Peter do they refer to the Pope.

...and if there are other good arguements for the papacy which I'm sure there are as I never stated these are the only arguments ..why don't you point them out

Perhaps because I hope to become Eastern Orthodox and I would be shooting myself in the foot by giving you good arguments for the Papacy?
I see, we have different goals you and I , I want the truth, the whole truth no matter where it lies, you on the other hand want to join a religion whereby even if it's not the total truth , you don't care, as long as you are accepted by the  orthodox, the arguements I presented are enough to prove what is the true catholic faith and no one here can refute them.
That your mind is made up and you're too stubborn to change it when presented with contrary arguments is readily apparent here.

Saying your arguments cannot be refuted... :-\ sounds rather presumptuous to me.
that your mind is made up and you're too stubborn to change it when presented with contrary arguments is readily apparent here.
are you saying your arguements can be refuted????
Would you like to try? ;)
I have stated the argument that St Peter was given primacy of the church with the following, I guess it's up to you to refute it
Jesus tells Peter to rule His sheep

John 21:15-17

Jesus tells Peter to feed my lambs, tend my sheep, feed my sheep. Jesus clearly gives St Peter authority over His flock, the members of His church. Some may ask why Jesus says the 1st time, feed my lambs, and the 2nd and 3rd times my sheep. The early church fathers understood this reference to lambs and sheep to differentiate between youngerand older members of the Church, or to distinguish between the faithful and the clergy . All of them are entrusted to St Peter.

 

Now what’s particularly important is that when Jesus says Feed my lambs etc..the 2nd  command of the 3 is the word poimaine in Greek. Many bibles will translate all 3 the same way, as “feed”, but the 2nd command is actually different from the 1st and 3rd.

 

John 21:15-17 “ He saith unto him, Feed (boske) my lambs…he saith unto him tend (poimane) my sheep…Jesus saith unto him, feed (boske) my sheep.”

 

In the 1st and 3rd commands that Jesus gives to Peter about His flock, the word in the greek is boske. Boske means to feed. But the word poimane, the 2nd command of Jesus to peter about the flock, means to rule. It is also translated as tend. Hence, Jesus not only commissioned Peter to feed His Church, but to rule it. It’s fascinating that a form of the very same word poimane, which Jesus uses about peter’s authority over the flock in John 21:16, is also used in revelation 2:27

 

Rev 2;27 “ And he shall rule (poimanei) with a rod of iron..”

 

That means that Peter not only has a primacy over Christ’s flock, but a primacy of jurisdiction to rule and govern the flock, contrary to what Eastern Orthodox would say.
Actually, many Eastern Orthodox would agree for the most part with what you have said thus far about the primacy of the Apostle Peter, so you're kinda preaching to the choir here.

The same word poimane is used in Rev 12:5 and elsewhere to indicate the power to rule.

 

 

St Basil the Great (330-379) AD , Against Eunomians, 4 “Peter…who on account of the pre-eminence of his faith received upon himself the building of the Church.”

 

St. Gregory Nazienzen, great Eastern father (329-389 A.D), oration 26”..of all the disciples of Christ, all of whom were great and deserving of the choice, one is called rock and entrusted with the foundations of the Church.”
I don't have a problem with the primacy of St. Peter among the Apostles, or even with the primacy of Rome as a spiritual authority within the early Church. What I don't see as evident in early Church history is any concept, such as the Roman Church teaches today, of the sovereignty of a universal papal monarch or papal infallibility even in certain restricted circumstances. Your job is to convince me that modern Roman teachings about the papacy can be traced back to the early Church's understanding of Rome's primacy without you reading anything backward into the early writings. Can you do this?
fair enough, I did get resistance from others in this forum about what you seem to acknowledge, that Peter was the rock, was given primacy etc so I sense you all are not in agreement..... now the split came in 1054 between our churches, so I'm not sure if bringing up anything the popes said after this date as being useful correct? for example I know vatican 1 is a no no for you guys but the break came way before,
let me know your thoughts on the following

When Pope Victor I (189-198) chose to excommunicate the Asian churches from the universal church and Rome for following their own tradition concerning the appropriate day to celebrate the Resurrection, a number of bishops were critical of him, but none challenged his authority to do so. St. Irenaeus urged him not “to cut off whole churches” and he relented, though he had called synods to consider the problem on his own authority. St. Irenaeus, writing his famous “Against Heresies” after 180 A.D. noted, It is possible, then, for everyone in every Church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the Apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the Apostles, and their successors to our own times . . . . The blessed Apostles [Peter and Paul] having founded and built up the Church [of Rome] handed over the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the epistle to Timothy [2 Tim 4:21] To him succeeded Anencletus; and after him in the third place, from the Apostles, Clement." These men were the first three popes.

Writing in 251 A.D., St. Cyprian of Carthage noted:

And again He says to him [Peter] after His resurrection: 'Feed my sheep' (John 21:17). On him He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep; and although He assigns a like power to all the Apostles, yet He founded a single chair, 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; but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all our 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 desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that his is in the Church?"
If Rome were to fall into heresy, would we be bound to follow her?
you are bound to follow the teachings of the true catholic church, not rome, so for me I can not follow the teachings of the heretical popes for the last 5 plus decades as I have absolute proof they are anti catholic, so I guess we have to go back to 1054 when the orthodox split with the roman catholic church, can you give me a brief summary of what you believe are the heresies of Rome that caused the split...my belief is we've had heretical popes throughout history but that doesn't mean you should not follow the true teachings of the magisterium, from the true popes
Well, for one, there's the papacy finally caving in to outside pressure to make a unilateral change to a creed that was drafted and ratified by an ecumenical council (i.e., the filioque clause). You may think that the papacy has authority even over an ecumenical council, but we Orthodox believe otherwise. Following the example of Acts 15, where the apostles and bishops gathered in council to address the burning doctrinal issue of the day--BTW, it was James, the local bishop of Jerusalem, NOT St. Peter, who had the last word in this council--the Orthodox Church expresses her mind most authoritatively in council. By asserting its jurisdiction even over the ecumenical councils, the papacy sinned against the unity of the Church as this was expressed in her councils. Not only this, but in asserting that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from one principle, the Latin Church departed from the traditional teaching that the Son and the Holy Spirit both find their source of life in the Father as from one Monarch.

here's an interesting take on the filioque issue by the Dimonds
http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/the_catholic_church_salvation_faith_and_baptism.php/
Can you cite an authority other than the Dimonds, like maybe someone whose authority we Orthodox actually recognize?

In 381 the Council of Constantinople defined that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father.  The Council did not say that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son.  The omission of the words “and the Son” (filioque in Latin) caused countless millions to erroneously conclude that the Holy Ghost does not proceed from the Son, a heresy that was later condemned by the Church.  If the Council of Constantinople had simply included that little statement, that the Holy Ghost also proceeds from the Son, it would have eliminated over a thousand years of controversy with the Eastern Schismatics – a controversy which still continues to this day.  That little phrase (“and the Son”), if it had been included in Constantinople, probably would have stopped millions of people from leaving the Catholic Church and embracing Eastern Orthodoxy, because the Eastern Orthodox thought and still think that the Catholic Church’s teaching that the Holy Ghost proceeds from Father and the Son is contrary to the Council of Constantinople, which only said that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father.

 

     So, did the Council of Constantinople err?  Of course not.  But could Constantinople have been more clear by adding that little phrase which would have eliminated a controversy?  Absolutely.  So why did God allow this controversy to occur, when He could have prevented it by simply inspiring the council fathers at Constantinople in 381 to include that tiny phrase?  The answer is that there must be heresies.

 

1 Cor. 11:19: “For there must be also heresies: that they also, who are approved, may be manifest among you.”

 

     God allows heresies to arise in order to see who will believe the truth and who will not, to see who will look at the truth sincerely and who will pervert things to suit his own heretical desires.  God never allows His councils, such as Constantinople and Trent, to teach any error, but He can allow the truth to be stated in ways that give people the opportunity to twist and pervert the meaning of the words used if they so desire (no pun intended), as the Eastern Schismatics did in regard to Constantinople’s omission of the phrase: and the Son.

 

      In fact, it doesn’t even matter if some of the council fathers at Constantinople believed that the Holy Ghost does not proceed from the Son; and there were probably some who didn’t believe that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son.  All that matters is what the Council of Constantinople actually declared, a declaration which says nothing contrary to the fact that the Holy Ghost does proceed from the Son.  The intentions of the Council Fathers at Constantinople or any other Council have nothing to do with Papal Infallibility.  All that matters is what the actual dogma approved by the pope declares or finalizes in the Profession of Faith.



Fixed quote tags  -PtA
Yes, it has been said by some on your side that we fell into heresy by omitting the filioque from the Creed. ::) Do you have any evidence that the Church actually taught that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son, in spite of Christ's own statement to the contrary (see Chapter 14 or 16 of the Gospel of John)? To convict us of deviating from the truth, you have to first establish that the Church once taught something else prior to our deviation.
what was wrong with the early church fathers mentioned in wikipedia?
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: PeterTheAleut on April 02, 2013, 10:35:08 AM
if I take a quote out of context it's your job to prove it, just by saying I take a quote out of context doesn't make it so..sorry

Not every time a Church Father says Peter do they refer to the Pope.

...and if there are other good arguements for the papacy which I'm sure there are as I never stated these are the only arguments ..why don't you point them out

Perhaps because I hope to become Eastern Orthodox and I would be shooting myself in the foot by giving you good arguments for the Papacy?
I see, we have different goals you and I , I want the truth, the whole truth no matter where it lies, you on the other hand want to join a religion whereby even if it's not the total truth , you don't care, as long as you are accepted by the  orthodox, the arguements I presented are enough to prove what is the true catholic faith and no one here can refute them.
That your mind is made up and you're too stubborn to change it when presented with contrary arguments is readily apparent here.

Saying your arguments cannot be refuted... :-\ sounds rather presumptuous to me.
that your mind is made up and you're too stubborn to change it when presented with contrary arguments is readily apparent here.
are you saying your arguements can be refuted????
Would you like to try? ;)
I have stated the argument that St Peter was given primacy of the church with the following, I guess it's up to you to refute it
Jesus tells Peter to rule His sheep

John 21:15-17

Jesus tells Peter to feed my lambs, tend my sheep, feed my sheep. Jesus clearly gives St Peter authority over His flock, the members of His church. Some may ask why Jesus says the 1st time, feed my lambs, and the 2nd and 3rd times my sheep. The early church fathers understood this reference to lambs and sheep to differentiate between youngerand older members of the Church, or to distinguish between the faithful and the clergy . All of them are entrusted to St Peter.

 

Now what’s particularly important is that when Jesus says Feed my lambs etc..the 2nd  command of the 3 is the word poimaine in Greek. Many bibles will translate all 3 the same way, as “feed”, but the 2nd command is actually different from the 1st and 3rd.

 

John 21:15-17 “ He saith unto him, Feed (boske) my lambs…he saith unto him tend (poimane) my sheep…Jesus saith unto him, feed (boske) my sheep.”

 

In the 1st and 3rd commands that Jesus gives to Peter about His flock, the word in the greek is boske. Boske means to feed. But the word poimane, the 2nd command of Jesus to peter about the flock, means to rule. It is also translated as tend. Hence, Jesus not only commissioned Peter to feed His Church, but to rule it. It’s fascinating that a form of the very same word poimane, which Jesus uses about peter’s authority over the flock in John 21:16, is also used in revelation 2:27

 

Rev 2;27 “ And he shall rule (poimanei) with a rod of iron..”

 

That means that Peter not only has a primacy over Christ’s flock, but a primacy of jurisdiction to rule and govern the flock, contrary to what Eastern Orthodox would say.
Actually, many Eastern Orthodox would agree for the most part with what you have said thus far about the primacy of the Apostle Peter, so you're kinda preaching to the choir here.

The same word poimane is used in Rev 12:5 and elsewhere to indicate the power to rule.

 

 

St Basil the Great (330-379) AD , Against Eunomians, 4 “Peter…who on account of the pre-eminence of his faith received upon himself the building of the Church.”

 

St. Gregory Nazienzen, great Eastern father (329-389 A.D), oration 26”..of all the disciples of Christ, all of whom were great and deserving of the choice, one is called rock and entrusted with the foundations of the Church.”
I don't have a problem with the primacy of St. Peter among the Apostles, or even with the primacy of Rome as a spiritual authority within the early Church. What I don't see as evident in early Church history is any concept, such as the Roman Church teaches today, of the sovereignty of a universal papal monarch or papal infallibility even in certain restricted circumstances. Your job is to convince me that modern Roman teachings about the papacy can be traced back to the early Church's understanding of Rome's primacy without you reading anything backward into the early writings. Can you do this?
fair enough, I did get resistance from others in this forum about what you seem to acknowledge, that Peter was the rock, was given primacy etc so I sense you all are not in agreement..... now the split came in 1054 between our churches, so I'm not sure if bringing up anything the popes said after this date as being useful correct? for example I know vatican 1 is a no no for you guys but the break came way before,
let me know your thoughts on the following

When Pope Victor I (189-198) chose to excommunicate the Asian churches from the universal church and Rome for following their own tradition concerning the appropriate day to celebrate the Resurrection, a number of bishops were critical of him, but none challenged his authority to do so. St. Irenaeus urged him not “to cut off whole churches” and he relented, though he had called synods to consider the problem on his own authority. St. Irenaeus, writing his famous “Against Heresies” after 180 A.D. noted, It is possible, then, for everyone in every Church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the Apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the Apostles, and their successors to our own times . . . . The blessed Apostles [Peter and Paul] having founded and built up the Church [of Rome] handed over the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the epistle to Timothy [2 Tim 4:21] To him succeeded Anencletus; and after him in the third place, from the Apostles, Clement." These men were the first three popes.

Writing in 251 A.D., St. Cyprian of Carthage noted:

And again He says to him [Peter] after His resurrection: 'Feed my sheep' (John 21:17). On him He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep; and although He assigns a like power to all the Apostles, yet He founded a single chair, 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; but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all our 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 desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that his is in the Church?"
If Rome were to fall into heresy, would we be bound to follow her?
you are bound to follow the teachings of the true catholic church, not rome, so for me I can not follow the teachings of the heretical popes for the last 5 plus decades as I have absolute proof they are anti catholic, so I guess we have to go back to 1054 when the orthodox split with the roman catholic church, can you give me a brief summary of what you believe are the heresies of Rome that caused the split...my belief is we've had heretical popes throughout history but that doesn't mean you should not follow the true teachings of the magisterium, from the true popes
Well, for one, there's the papacy finally caving in to outside pressure to make a unilateral change to a creed that was drafted and ratified by an ecumenical council (i.e., the filioque clause). You may think that the papacy has authority even over an ecumenical council, but we Orthodox believe otherwise. Following the example of Acts 15, where the apostles and bishops gathered in council to address the burning doctrinal issue of the day--BTW, it was James, the local bishop of Jerusalem, NOT St. Peter, who had the last word in this council--the Orthodox Church expresses her mind most authoritatively in council. By asserting its jurisdiction even over the ecumenical councils, the papacy sinned against the unity of the Church as this was expressed in her councils. Not only this, but in asserting that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from one principle, the Latin Church departed from the traditional teaching that the Son and the Holy Spirit both find their source of life in the Father as from one Monarch.

here's an interesting take on the filioque issue by the Dimonds
http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/the_catholic_church_salvation_faith_and_baptism.php/
Can you cite an authority other than the Dimonds, like maybe someone whose authority we Orthodox actually recognize?

In 381 the Council of Constantinople defined that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father.  The Council did not say that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son.  The omission of the words “and the Son” (filioque in Latin) caused countless millions to erroneously conclude that the Holy Ghost does not proceed from the Son, a heresy that was later condemned by the Church.  If the Council of Constantinople had simply included that little statement, that the Holy Ghost also proceeds from the Son, it would have eliminated over a thousand years of controversy with the Eastern Schismatics – a controversy which still continues to this day.  That little phrase (“and the Son”), if it had been included in Constantinople, probably would have stopped millions of people from leaving the Catholic Church and embracing Eastern Orthodoxy, because the Eastern Orthodox thought and still think that the Catholic Church’s teaching that the Holy Ghost proceeds from Father and the Son is contrary to the Council of Constantinople, which only said that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father.

 

     So, did the Council of Constantinople err?  Of course not.  But could Constantinople have been more clear by adding that little phrase which would have eliminated a controversy?  Absolutely.  So why did God allow this controversy to occur, when He could have prevented it by simply inspiring the council fathers at Constantinople in 381 to include that tiny phrase?  The answer is that there must be heresies.

 

1 Cor. 11:19: “For there must be also heresies: that they also, who are approved, may be manifest among you.”

 

     God allows heresies to arise in order to see who will believe the truth and who will not, to see who will look at the truth sincerely and who will pervert things to suit his own heretical desires.  God never allows His councils, such as Constantinople and Trent, to teach any error, but He can allow the truth to be stated in ways that give people the opportunity to twist and pervert the meaning of the words used if they so desire (no pun intended), as the Eastern Schismatics did in regard to Constantinople’s omission of the phrase: and the Son.

 

      In fact, it doesn’t even matter if some of the council fathers at Constantinople believed that the Holy Ghost does not proceed from the Son; and there were probably some who didn’t believe that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son.  All that matters is what the Council of Constantinople actually declared, a declaration which says nothing contrary to the fact that the Holy Ghost does proceed from the Son.  The intentions of the Council Fathers at Constantinople or any other Council have nothing to do with Papal Infallibility.  All that matters is what the actual dogma approved by the pope declares or finalizes in the Profession of Faith.



Fixed quote tags  -PtA
Yes, it has been said by some on your side that we fell into heresy by omitting the filioque from the Creed. ::) Do you have any evidence that the Church actually taught that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son, in spite of Christ's own statement to the contrary (see Chapter 14 or 16 of the Gospel of John)? To convict us of deviating from the truth, you have to first establish that the Church once taught something else prior to our deviation.
what was wrong with the early church fathers mentioned in wikipedia?
1. I find Wikipedia to be a good place to start my research on any topic because it provides a good overview of the subject and where I can get more information. That said, that's really the only use I have for Wikipedia.

2. For anything more scholarly, I'm going to cite sources other than Wikipedia. Since Wikipedia articles are open to modification by the public, anyone with an agenda can make whatever changes he/she wants to any article posted there. In this particular case, I'm more likely to regard the list of patristic references given on the article you cited as mere cherry picking than if you were to cite them from a source whose scholarly authority is more broadly accepted.

To me, the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed I recite every Sunday in the Divine Liturgy is the Church's first dogmatic statement of her belief in the theology of the Holy Spirit. The Creed says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, END STOP. Whereas I suppose that this language in and of itself doesn't forbid one to believe in some theory of the procession of the Holy Spirit also from the Son, I would have to recognize that this theory of the double procession is nothing more than a theological opinion that I'm not bound to hold, because it's not in the Creed of our Fathers.

To insert this double procession theology into the Creed by saying the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, however, is an act of adding a dogmatic proclamation to the Creed of the Nicene Fathers that demonstrates a dogmatic authority I don't believe Rome ever had. I'm certainly willing to recognize Rome's primacy of authority within the Church, but only insofar as she submits herself to the even higher authority of an ecumenical council. Only an ecumenical council can modify the work of a previous ecumenical council, which Constantinople did in the Second Ecumenical Council when she added language regarding the Holy Spirit to the Creed produced in Nicea. Any bishop or pope who takes it upon himself to make any such modifications to the work of an ecumenical council puts himself outside the Church by blaspheming the supreme authority of the ecumenical councils.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: JoeS2 on April 02, 2013, 12:19:43 PM

1. I find Wikipedia to be a good place to start my research on any topic because it provides a good overview of the subject and where I can get more information. That said, that's really the only use I have for Wikipedia.

2. For anything more scholarly, I'm going to cite sources other than Wikipedia. Since Wikipedia articles are open to modification by the public, anyone with an agenda can make whatever changes he/she wants to any article posted there. In this particular case, I'm more likely to regard the list of patristic references given on the article you cited as mere cherry picking than if you were to cite them from a source whose scholarly authority is more broadly accepted.

To me, the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed I recite every Sunday in the Divine Liturgy is the Church's first dogmatic statement of her belief in the theology of the Holy Spirit. The Creed says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, END STOP. Whereas I suppose that this language in and of itself doesn't forbid one to believe in some theory of the procession of the Holy Spirit also from the Son, I would have to recognize that this theory of the double procession is nothing more than a theological opinion that I'm not bound to hold, because it's not in the Creed of our Fathers.

To insert this double procession theology into the Creed by saying the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, however, is an act of adding a dogmatic proclamation to the Creed of the Nicene Fathers that demonstrates a dogmatic authority I don't believe Rome ever had. I'm certainly willing to recognize Rome's primacy of authority within the Church, but only insofar as she submits herself to the even higher authority of an ecumenical council. Only an ecumenical council can modify the work of a previous ecumenical council, which Constantinople did in the Second Ecumenical Council when she added language regarding the Holy Spirit to the Creed produced in Nicea. Any bishop or pope who takes it upon himself to make any such modifications to the work of an ecumenical council puts himself outside the Church by blaspheming the supreme authority of the ecumenical councils.

You know it would be pretty cool if everyone would cut short their continued posts by lopping off maybe the last ten messages to make the search for the end a little more easier......thanx
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: PeterTheAleut on April 02, 2013, 02:10:07 PM

1. I find Wikipedia to be a good place to start my research on any topic because it provides a good overview of the subject and where I can get more information. That said, that's really the only use I have for Wikipedia.

2. For anything more scholarly, I'm going to cite sources other than Wikipedia. Since Wikipedia articles are open to modification by the public, anyone with an agenda can make whatever changes he/she wants to any article posted there. In this particular case, I'm more likely to regard the list of patristic references given on the article you cited as mere cherry picking than if you were to cite them from a source whose scholarly authority is more broadly accepted.

To me, the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed I recite every Sunday in the Divine Liturgy is the Church's first dogmatic statement of her belief in the theology of the Holy Spirit. The Creed says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, END STOP. Whereas I suppose that this language in and of itself doesn't forbid one to believe in some theory of the procession of the Holy Spirit also from the Son, I would have to recognize that this theory of the double procession is nothing more than a theological opinion that I'm not bound to hold, because it's not in the Creed of our Fathers.

To insert this double procession theology into the Creed by saying the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, however, is an act of adding a dogmatic proclamation to the Creed of the Nicene Fathers that demonstrates a dogmatic authority I don't believe Rome ever had. I'm certainly willing to recognize Rome's primacy of authority within the Church, but only insofar as she submits herself to the even higher authority of an ecumenical council. Only an ecumenical council can modify the work of a previous ecumenical council, which Constantinople did in the Second Ecumenical Council when she added language regarding the Holy Spirit to the Creed produced in Nicea. Any bishop or pope who takes it upon himself to make any such modifications to the work of an ecumenical council puts himself outside the Church by blaspheming the supreme authority of the ecumenical councils.

You know it would be pretty cool if everyone would cut short their continued posts by lopping off maybe the last ten messages to make the search for the end a little more easier......thanx
Relax. You're not the only one who posts on this forum. ;)
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Peter J on April 02, 2013, 02:35:28 PM
Relax. You're not the only one who posts on this forum. ;)

I'm not entirely sure why, but that even makes me feel more relaxed.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: JoeS2 on April 02, 2013, 03:55:28 PM
Relax. You're not the only one who posts on this forum. ;)

I'm not entirely sure why, but that even makes me feel more relaxed.

Ok, let us see how big we can make it.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: orthonorm on April 02, 2013, 04:06:08 PM

1. I find Wikipedia to be a good place to start my research on any topic because it provides a good overview of the subject and where I can get more information. That said, that's really the only use I have for Wikipedia.

2. For anything more scholarly, I'm going to cite sources other than Wikipedia. Since Wikipedia articles are open to modification by the public, anyone with an agenda can make whatever changes he/she wants to any article posted there. In this particular case, I'm more likely to regard the list of patristic references given on the article you cited as mere cherry picking than if you were to cite them from a source whose scholarly authority is more broadly accepted.

To me, the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed I recite every Sunday in the Divine Liturgy is the Church's first dogmatic statement of her belief in the theology of the Holy Spirit. The Creed says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, END STOP. Whereas I suppose that this language in and of itself doesn't forbid one to believe in some theory of the procession of the Holy Spirit also from the Son, I would have to recognize that this theory of the double procession is nothing more than a theological opinion that I'm not bound to hold, because it's not in the Creed of our Fathers.

To insert this double procession theology into the Creed by saying the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, however, is an act of adding a dogmatic proclamation to the Creed of the Nicene Fathers that demonstrates a dogmatic authority I don't believe Rome ever had. I'm certainly willing to recognize Rome's primacy of authority within the Church, but only insofar as she submits herself to the even higher authority of an ecumenical council. Only an ecumenical council can modify the work of a previous ecumenical council, which Constantinople did in the Second Ecumenical Council when she added language regarding the Holy Spirit to the Creed produced in Nicea. Any bishop or pope who takes it upon himself to make any such modifications to the work of an ecumenical council puts himself outside the Church by blaspheming the supreme authority of the ecumenical councils.

You know it would be pretty cool if everyone would cut short their continued posts by lopping off maybe the last ten messages to make the search for the end a little more easier......thanx

One board I used to post on had a script which allowed you to see just my posts.

Its an idea which should be adopted everywhere.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: J Michael on April 02, 2013, 04:19:55 PM

1. I find Wikipedia to be a good place to start my research on any topic because it provides a good overview of the subject and where I can get more information. That said, that's really the only use I have for Wikipedia.

2. For anything more scholarly, I'm going to cite sources other than Wikipedia. Since Wikipedia articles are open to modification by the public, anyone with an agenda can make whatever changes he/she wants to any article posted there. In this particular case, I'm more likely to regard the list of patristic references given on the article you cited as mere cherry picking than if you were to cite them from a source whose scholarly authority is more broadly accepted.

To me, the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed I recite every Sunday in the Divine Liturgy is the Church's first dogmatic statement of her belief in the theology of the Holy Spirit. The Creed says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, END STOP. Whereas I suppose that this language in and of itself doesn't forbid one to believe in some theory of the procession of the Holy Spirit also from the Son, I would have to recognize that this theory of the double procession is nothing more than a theological opinion that I'm not bound to hold, because it's not in the Creed of our Fathers.

To insert this double procession theology into the Creed by saying the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, however, is an act of adding a dogmatic proclamation to the Creed of the Nicene Fathers that demonstrates a dogmatic authority I don't believe Rome ever had. I'm certainly willing to recognize Rome's primacy of authority within the Church, but only insofar as she submits herself to the even higher authority of an ecumenical council. Only an ecumenical council can modify the work of a previous ecumenical council, which Constantinople did in the Second Ecumenical Council when she added language regarding the Holy Spirit to the Creed produced in Nicea. Any bishop or pope who takes it upon himself to make any such modifications to the work of an ecumenical council puts himself outside the Church by blaspheming the supreme authority of the ecumenical councils.

You know it would be pretty cool if everyone would cut short their continued posts by lopping off maybe the last ten messages to make the search for the end a little more easier......thanx

One board I used to post on had a script which allowed you to see just my posts.

Its an idea which should be adopted everywhere.

And you stopped posting there?? :o  Why on earth for?!  ;D
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: Peter J on April 02, 2013, 04:56:18 PM
One board I used to post on had a script which allowed you to see just my posts.

Its an idea which should be adopted everywhere.

I think I've got it.

No wait; something definitely doesn't seem right.
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: orthonorm on April 02, 2013, 08:24:50 PM
With Rome falling into heresy and introducing novel doctrines starting in 800 A.D., she caused serious repercussions. When Rome finally split from Orthodoxy in 1054 A.D., only a few centuries later the Protestants split from her, and then millions of Catholics left Roman Catholicism in the 20th century.

If you are going to play the numbers game.

RCs are truer than whatever you are, not being Orthodox or RC.

And Islam is the truest!
Title: Re: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me
Post by: orthonorm on April 02, 2013, 08:26:02 PM

1. I find Wikipedia to be a good place to start my research on any topic because it provides a good overview of the subject and where I can get more information. That said, that's really the only use I have for Wikipedia.

2. For anything more scholarly, I'm going to cite sources other than Wikipedia. Since Wikipedia articles are open to modification by the public, anyone with an agend