Pope's Authority? Is it legit?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Cappadocious

Well-Known Member
Sep 29, 2012
3,885
860
✟30,661.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
Specifically, you wrote "Please do not attempt some sort of scripted apologetic. RC are supposed to respect reason and have a higher standard than evangelicalism" which is insulting language directed against evangelicalism and against Thursday (your interlocutor).
Evangelicalism merits derision, though the people should be spared. As for Thursday, if insulting his approach is insulting him, then I have insulted him. Let the other readers judge. As I stated before, his approach is unbecoming of the scholarly Roman Catholic tradition and stoops to the level of what Christianforums users tend to call apologetics, which really means Evangelical apologetics.

You also wrote "by engaging in such low, manipulative, evangelical-style apologetics" which is very offensive on all sorts of levels.
Your point?

You concluded with the remark that I pointed out, namely "you are reducing your church to a mere sect" which I described in a previous post (#138) as an absurd conclusion for the reasons I stated in that post.
And as I pointed out in my post, your reading is obtuse, perhaps deliberately, and goes against what the construction I used means in common discourse in English.

As far as I am able to tell from the posts preceding #26 Thursday asked some questions and engaged in some comment on what he thinks is implied by some verses and some ideas.
Wow. And you thought I insulted him. I hope nothing I say is ever described like this.
 
Upvote 0

All4Christ

✙ The Handmaid of God Laura ✙
CF Senior Ambassador
Supporter
Mar 11, 2003
11,682
8,018
PA
Visit site
✟1,013,227.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
At the time this post was made, I felt like Thursday was trying to lead me down a path and was not accepting the complexity required in my answer. I was asked to answer the question with a simple yes / no, but I could not answer the question without the caveats I included. That said, Thursday clarified that the purpose was to establish common ground to start on. We let it go at that and we moved on from that to more fruitful discussion.
 
Upvote 0

MoreCoffee

Repentance works.
Jan 8, 2011
29,850
2,841
Near the flying spaghetti monster
✟57,848.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
You know, I wondered the same about your liking of Erose' post #106.
Hmm, I wonder if that was a mistaken 'like' it is gone now. I am unsure of the accuracy of the statements about Photius in it. I think I intended to like a post from erose with quotes (and nothing else) from early church fathers. But one can like a post without approving all the things said in it. It depends on the proportions of good things to not necessarily so good things in it.
 
Upvote 0

Erose

Newbie
Jul 2, 2010
9,008
1,470
✟67,771.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
The first three paragraphs were full of fail. The rest of your post was fine though :)
We will just have to disagree, then; but I would suspect that any Orthodox in good standing would have issues with what I wrote, doesn't make it wrong though. I see too many threads that confirm what I wrote to be exactly true.
 
Upvote 0

Senod2

Active Member
Feb 22, 2016
122
31
32
Norway
✟746.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Peter was not infallible and nor is the current pope nor any pope that preceded him because infallibility is an attribute of specific statements and not a guarantee of personal correctness in every situation and for every statement. Infallibility applies to statements made by church councils and approved by the holy see too yet few within the ancient churches dispute the infallibility of the canons and creeds produced by ecumenical councils, which makes me wonder why the infallibility present in papal statements is disputed while the infallibility present in the creeds and canons of ecumenical councils is not.

Yeah i have been thinking about that. If its tradition that popes are not in error. Then why was Peter confused on the circumcission stuff?. I know the answer, although i am not sure if catholics would agree but its simple. He was not pope yet. So when he got that role then he was given the grace. Remember, Peter also denied Jesus to save himself and yet Jesus trusted Peter to carry out his role, he was loyal but he struggled indeed. You can think of it this way, i bet a person who is not a pope yet have done lots of bad things, but when he becomes pope god more or less blessed that person from the mistakes in earlier life. Thats just human in general, it is when someone selects a pope that he becomes free from error or mistakes more or less in a theological sense.

Well thats the answer i could come up with. Feel free to agree or disagree.

I also found a video explaining it more. I would love to hear your opinion on it?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

All4Christ

✙ The Handmaid of God Laura ✙
CF Senior Ambassador
Supporter
Mar 11, 2003
11,682
8,018
PA
Visit site
✟1,013,227.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
it is when someone selects a pope that he becomes free from error or mistakes more or less in a theological sense.
Remember that there were popes who professed heresies.

Example: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Honorius_I

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm

He was posthumously anathematized.

To be fair, I believe that Catholicism does not believe that Popes are free from personal errors - but rather are free from theological error when speaking in ex cathedra.

EDIT: I just saw that MoreCoffee explained this in a previous post. Apologies for any repetition.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Erose

Newbie
Jul 2, 2010
9,008
1,470
✟67,771.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Yeah i have been thinking about that. If its tradition that popes are not in error. Then why was Peter confused on the circumcission stuff?. I know the answer, although i am not sure if catholics would agree but its simple. He was not pope yet. So when he got that role then he was given the grace. Remember, Peter also denied Jesus to save himself and yet Jesus trusted Peter to carry out his role, he was loyal but he struggled indeed. You can think of it this way, i bet a person who is not a pope yet have done lots of bad things, but when he becomes pope god more or less blessed that person from the mistakes in earlier life. Thats just human in general, it is when someone selects a pope that he becomes free from error or mistakes more or less in a theological sense.

Well thats the answer i could come up with. Feel free to agree or disagree.

I also found a video explaining it more. I would love to hear your opinion on it?

I think you are still confused on a number of matters.
1. St. Peter became the vicar of Christ when Christ ascended into heaven.
2. St. Peter wasn't confused on the subject of circumcision. Remember in Acts, it was Peter who received a vision that led to him baptizing Gentiles. What Paul rebuked him for was not a doctrinal issue, but rather a pastoral one. There is IMO a question on which one was correct on the matter, but that is a different debate.
3. The chrism of infallibility only applies to the pope when he speaks what we call ex cathedra, i.e. From the chair of Peter, which means as the supreme pastor of the Church, and only concerning faith and morals.
4. The pope is not impeccable. He is sinner just like the rest of us. Pope St. John Paul II received the sacrament of confession every day. Pope Francis twice a month.
5. The pope is not normally infallible. Which means he can be wrong concerning faith and morals, when he is not speaking ex cathedra. For example his personal writings or private conversations, etc.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Erose

Newbie
Jul 2, 2010
9,008
1,470
✟67,771.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Remember that there were popes who professed heresies.

Example: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Honorius_I

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm

He was posthumously anathematized.

To be fair, I believe that Catholicism does not believe that Popes are free from personal errors - but rather are free from theological error when speaking in ex cathedra.

EDIT: I just saw that MoreCoffee explained this in a previous post. Apologies for any repetition.
Pope Honorius I was not officially condemned as a heretic, but was condemned for being weak pastorally, concerning a group of heretics that he and the Patriarch of Constantiople (can't remember his name off the top of my head) that they were trying to reconcile back to the Church. Pope Honorius nor the PoC professed any belief in a heretical doctrine.
 
Upvote 0

All4Christ

✙ The Handmaid of God Laura ✙
CF Senior Ambassador
Supporter
Mar 11, 2003
11,682
8,018
PA
Visit site
✟1,013,227.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Pope Honorius I was not officially condemned as a heretic, but was condemned for being weak pastorally, concerning a group of heretics that he and the Patriarch of Constantiople (can't remember his name off the top of my head) that they were trying to reconcile back to the Church. Pope Honorius nor the PoC professed any belief in a heretical doctrine.
The link from New Advent stated that he was a heretic by fact, not intention. Is this incorrect?

It is clear that no Catholic has the right to defend Pope Honorius. He was a heretic, not in intention, but in fact; and he is to be considered to have been condemned in the sense in which Origen and Theodore of Mopsuestia, who died in Catholiccommunion, never having resisted the Church, have been condemned.

Also, have I misunderstood the belief about personal infallibility vs papal "ex cathedra" infallibility? Do you believe is is impossible for a pope to profess heresy?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

prodromos

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Nov 28, 2003
21,424
11,977
58
Sydney, Straya
✟1,167,232.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
In my not so humble opinion, if the papacy did indeed have the charisma of speaking infallibly on faith and morals, then it has been criminally negligent in its exercising of the same. Its kind of like in the parable of the talents, except in this case it was the one given 10 talents who has buried them in the ground.
 
Upvote 0

MoreCoffee

Repentance works.
Jan 8, 2011
29,850
2,841
Near the flying spaghetti monster
✟57,848.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Yeah i have been thinking about that. If its tradition that popes are not in error. Then why was Peter confused on the circumcission stuff?. I know the answer, although i am not sure if catholics would agree but its simple. He was not pope yet. So when he got that role then he was given the grace. Remember, Peter also denied Jesus to save himself and yet Jesus trusted Peter to carry out his role, he was loyal but he struggled indeed. You can think of it this way, i bet a person who is not a pope yet have done lots of bad things, but when he becomes pope god more or less blessed that person from the mistakes in earlier life. Thats just human in general, it is when someone selects a pope that he becomes free from error or mistakes more or less in a theological sense.

Well thats the answer i could come up with. Feel free to agree or disagree.

I also found a video explaining it more. I would love to hear your opinion on it?
I do not think that the answer is "he was not the pope yet" because he was the pope from the moment that the Lord called him to the role of strengthening his brethren and even before that when the Lord named him Rock. But that is a side issue I think. Infallibility does not make a person incapable of stupidity or incapable of error. Just as Inspiration did not stop saint Paul from being unsure of who he baptised in Corinth. God's gift of infallibility applies to what God wants a person to say on a specific matter but not to what the same person says when he is speaking about other things.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Erose

Newbie
Jul 2, 2010
9,008
1,470
✟67,771.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
The link from New Advent stated that he was a heretic by fact, not intention. Is this incorrect?
He was condemned as a heretic, not for what he believed or taught, but because of his negligence. Patriarch Surgius was also condemned in like manner. Personally after reading the letters between the two, there is no way either were heretics in the normal sense of the word. Also given the fact that the condemnations occurred, after their deaths, where they had no one there to defend them, was also something I don't like the idea of.

Even at this point there is no evidence that either patriarch believed or taught heresy. I think that they were trying to reconcile a group of monothelites back into the Church and they were trying to figure out how to do so.

Also, have I misunderstood the belief about personal infallibility vs papal @ex cathedra" infallibility? Do you believe is is impossible for a pope to profess heresy?
On a personal level, I guess it is possible, but I'm not sure. There hasn't been (from the viewpoint of Catholic doctrine) a pope who has openly declared a heretical belief. Now that may not be a personal chrism, but rather a testament to the system. I don't think that it is even possible for a pope to write and publish something heretical any longer due to the current system. We've had some bad pope's throughout history, and yet throughout that history, none of those bad pope's have tried to profess a heretical belief.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

tz620q

Regular Member
Supporter
Apr 19, 2007
2,658
1,038
Carmel, IN
✟567,157.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Pope Honorius I was not officially condemned as a heretic, but was condemned for being weak pastorally, concerning a group of heretics that he and the Patriarch of Constantiople (can't remember his name off the top of my head) that they were trying to reconcile back to the Church. Pope Honorius nor the PoC professed any belief in a heretical doctrine.
This is from a post I did a while back on Pope Honorius - http://www.christianforums.com/threads/history-of-the-papacy.7894520/page-2#post-68213706

"That is a historically complex issue. The Emperor Heraclius had tried to bring about a reconciliation with the Egyptian and Syrian Churches that had been Monophysite since 451. He wanted their help to stem the Muslim invasions. This seemed like a good political goal; but ran into a lot of debate and people quickly formed sides with the Patriarch of Constantinople, Sergius caught in the middle. So he asked Pope Honorius for a ruling on whether you could use the term one will, with the understanding that this did not mean one operation. Honorius' reply to Sergius is certainly condemnable as being less than clear and maybe heretical; but St. Maximus the Confessor, who was an aide to Heraclius wrote in defense of Honorius that his opposition to the idea of 'two wills' was based on the interpretation of 'two wills' as 'two contrary wills'.

So did Honorius support Heraclius' compromise because he saw the importance of a united front against the rise of Islam? It is hard to say, Honorius' reply to Sergius prompted Sergius to get Emperor Heraclius to send out in 638 the Ecthesis that said that all of Heraclius' subjects had to admit that Christ had one will and called for them to not use the terms one operation or two operations to avoid conflict. Honorius had died and never saw the Ecthesis. The next Pope, Severinus and then shortly after John IV, refused to accept the Ecthesis and Heraclius disowned the Ecthesis. His successor, Emperor Constans, revoked it.

In all of this a Catholic apologist can say two things, first it shows Constantinople looking towards Rome throughout this period as the bulwark for orthodoxy. Second, even when a Pope showed less than ideal leadership, the Church (and here I mean in both East and West) showed a very quick response to condemn the less than orthodox. I am using words here that seem vague; because Sergius and Honorius did not have an opportunity to defend in depth what they were trying to do. My sense is that they were trying to bring about unity in the Church that had been missing for nearly 200 years. This is a good goal; but it required them to walk a line that probably should not have been walked without a formal council."
 
Upvote 0

MoreCoffee

Repentance works.
Jan 8, 2011
29,850
2,841
Near the flying spaghetti monster
✟57,848.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
...
I also found a video explaining it more. I would love to hear your opinion on it?

It doesn't seem very erudite or interesting. I do not think it represents Catholic Church teaching any more than any other personal opinion (in this case a bit of a melodramatic vlog). The vlogger failed to note the distinction between inspiration and infallibility. These concepts are defined distinctly in the CCC and I invite you to check the definitions shown below.
Infallibility.jpg
Biblical Inspiration.jpg
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Senod2
Upvote 0

Bobgf

Regular Member
Supporter
Jan 20, 2008
411
33
Ohio
✟152,506.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I was planning on converting to Catholicism. But the reason why i chose Orthodoxy instead was because i find some biblical stuff that seems to contradict the ideal of the faith. Like "God does not show favoritism" just to mention a few examples, this is written both in Paul's letters and James letters. So having a pope as a above figure seem to kinda contradict that, but its also the interpretation of the matthew 16:18, with "You are Peter, and upon this rock i will build my church". Catholics atribute that to the legitimacy of popes. But thats not how orthodox see it, basically from what i have heard it has always been interpreted as "You are a rock, and upon this large amount of rock i will build my church" because Petros means rock in Greek, which is what Peter means. And the other greek word means large amount of rocks. So this was a word game as orthodox says it means. Although they agree that Peter was given the task of opening the gates of heaven though when he was given the keys. But not with the pope stuff.

Which i find to seem sensical.

But i am just wondering what your opinions are?
The Bible teaches that those who believe that Jesus is the Son of God, and was sent to save the world (Messiah), they shall not perish but have eternal life.

This was the proclamation that Peter proclaimed in Matthew 16:16, and this proclamation of Peter's is the rock on which the church is built.

Matthew 16:16
Peter answered and said, Thou art the Messiah, the Son of the living God.
 
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,339
26,779
Pacific Northwest
✟728,043.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
Do you deny that Peter was the leader of the apostles?

Peter seems to often be the spokesperson for the Twelve, and as such I think it could be said he had a more figurative leadership role (but, this also seems to be because--at least in the Gospels--Peter is the mouthiest, and not always for the better).

What doesn't seem to be shown is that Peter had any sort of definitive role as the leader of the apostles.

As such it seems more appropriate to understand that while "you are the rock" does indeed apply to Peter personally, it does not exclusively reply to Peter. We later, of course, read that the Church is built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets (plural), and that the Church itself is the pillar of the truth. All of this, of course, on Christ our cornerstone.

What is therefore said to St. Peter becomes the common apostolic possession, and therefore the possession of the Church as a whole.

-CryptoLutheran
 
  • Like
Reactions: topcare
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

tz620q

Regular Member
Supporter
Apr 19, 2007
2,658
1,038
Carmel, IN
✟567,157.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
"As such it seems more appropriate to understand that while "you are the rock" does indeed apply to Peter personally, it does not exclusively reply to Peter. We later, of course, read that the Church is built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets (plural), and that the Church itself is the pillar of the truth. All of this, of course, on Christ our cornerstone.

What is therefore said to St. Peter becomes the common apostolic possession, and therefore the possession of the Church as a whole.

-CryptoLutheran
This thread got me thinking about a future reunited Christianity and what it could be like. I started thinking through a Christianity based on the Orthodox model which seems to have the following features (please correct me, I see this as the start of a civil discussion, not a rigorous essay.)
1. No centralized authority
2. A loose episcopal hierarchy that seems normally purely administrative and regional in scope
3. Strong monastic influence in theological discussions
4. Close ties with national governments in most of the historically Orthodox countries
5. Counciliar method of combating heresy or division

If we used this model for a world church, it would be kind of a U.N. of autocephalous churches and the unity would be only in continuing dialog with little effective ability to regulate belief or combat heresy. The worst "punishment" would be to expel the offending church (assuming that a whole segment has apostatised) from the council, which would really only put them back to where they are today. So to me the true test of whether this would succeed is how this group decided to police itself. What are your thoughts?
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.