(Catholics only) How long should I keep fighting what seems a lost war?

[Markie Boy]

Eternally no, who could be?
Theologically yes, I'll have to go by my conscience and I believe I'm about to reject Pastor Aeternus as heresy.
That's a official dogma of the church and the entire office of the papacy rests upon it.
I think Vatican 1 was the worst thing that could happen to the church and that it placed a human being in the place of God through utter blasphemy.

If this end up being my theological conviction then I have to leave the church.

That's a tough one. I wish I could help, but it's been a struggle of mine too. I don't like it. Jesus wants unity for us, and that one was one of the single biggest things they could have done to hurt unity with the East - and what we gained were two Marian Dogmas that were not essential to salvation, but were well accepted already.

Even if it's true, doesn't mean it was right to do it.

I have no issue with obedience to truth, but obedience to questionable things gets much harder.

 

[Beloved2018]

That's a tough one. I wish I could help, but it's been a struggle of mine too. I don't like it. Jesus wants unity for us, and that one was one of the single biggest things they could have done to hurt unity with the East - and what we gained were two Marian Dogmas that were not essential to salvation, but were well accepted already.

Even if it's true, doesn't mean it was right to do it.

I have no issue with obedience to truth, but obedience to questionable things gets much harder.

But when is it right and who determines?

 

[chevyontheriver]

Eternally no, who could be?
Theologically yes, I'll have to go by my conscience and I believe I'm about to reject Pastor Aeternus as heresy.
That's a official dogma of the church and the entire office of the papacy rests upon it.
I think Vatican 1 was the worst thing that could happen to the church and that it placed a human being in the place of God through utter blasphemy.

If this end up being my theological conviction then I have to leave the church.

I think you are putting your traditionalism ahead of your catholicity. And that because so many flaming liberals have now fallen in love with a pope who they think can do no wrong after hating the previous four popes. This pope shall pass and we will be able to breathe again.

By the way, Pastor Aeternus has to be read with the Vatican II document on the Church, Lumen Gentium.

 

[Markie Boy]

But when is it right and who determines?

At some point we all try to follow our conscience and what we think God wants for us. Simply following someone's authority because they claim it is not always right.

Many Godly people of the East didn't follow because they saw discontinuity. Many of them much more holy than the corrupt people that held the papal office of the time.

 

[Beloved2018]

At some point we all try to follow our conscience and what we think God wants for us. Simply following someone's authority because they claim it is not always right.

Many Godly people of the East didn't follow because they saw discontinuity. Many of them much more holy than the corrupt people that held the papal office of the time.

I agree that we shouldn't follow someone simply because they claim to have some sort of an authority. I think we all agree on that. Our assurance (and thus a peaceful conscience) lies in Christ's authority, not a person's self acclamation (about himself or anything else). What did Christ bestow on Peter? Anything? If nothing...then nothing else matters...head East. Something? Let's define it. What is it's nature? What is it's scope? Once that is determined, then individual cases throughout history (Popes and their actions) can be dealt with according to Christ's will.

 

[Markie Boy]

On one hand Jesus did say he gave Peter the keys to the Kingdom - but on the other hand he also said in John ch. 20:25-26 - The rulers of the gentiles lord it over them, but it shall never be so among you.

This would indicate the apostles would remain equal - not one becoming a supreme ruler. The Easts position that the pope was a "first among equals" fits this.

This is a passage I almost never see Catholics or the Catholic Church touch on.

 

[Stabat Mater dolorosa]

I think you are putting your traditionalism ahead of your catholicity. And that because so many flaming liberals have now fallen in love with a pope who they think can do no wrong after hating the previous four popes. This pope shall pass and we will be able to breathe again.

By the way, Pastor Aeternus has to be read with the Vatican II document on the Church, Lumen Gentium.

I've never fully accepted Pastor Aeternus, but I loved everything else in the church so I chose to adhere to a very narrow definition of it.

In PA the church defends its teaching by referring to councils and among those Constantinople VI, but conveniently jumping past Constantinople III which dealt with pope Honorius' post mortem.

The way people see the pope today is idolatry and should be condemned as breaking the 1st commandment.

At some point we all try to follow our conscience and what we think God wants for us. Simply following someone's authority because they claim it is not always right.

Many Godly people of the East didn't follow because they saw discontinuity. Many of them much more holy than the corrupt people that held the papal office of the time.

Claim, claim is the keyword here.

On one hand Jesus did say he gave Peter the keys to the Kingdom - but on the other hand he also said in John ch. 20:25-26 - The rulers of the gentiles lord it over them, but it shall never be so among you.

This would indicate the apostles would remain equal - not one becoming a supreme ruler. The Easts position that the pope was a "first among equals" fits this.

This is a passage I almost never see Catholics or the Catholic Church touch on.

Excellent point Markie brother.

 

[Beloved2018]

On one hand Jesus did say he gave Peter the keys to the Kingdom - but on the other hand he also said in John ch. 20:25-26 - The rulers of the gentiles lord it over them, but it shall never be so among you.

This would indicate the apostles would remain equal - not one becoming a supreme ruler. The Easts position that the pope was a "first among equals" fits this.

I'm not sure this is an accurate understanding of the passage. Following your premise through would leave us a Church without anyone in authority. That is to say why stop with the bishop of Rome? On the other hand, if we were to confine Christ's words of 'equality' to the historic (i.e. claim to apostolic origin) bishoprics alone, i.e. Rome, Greece (and Russia), Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem, what then of the bishops under them? What of the priests? What about us? Doesn't Christ's words apply to all Christians? I would argue, that yes, they do and that because they do and because we have shepherds under the Great Shepherd, it follows that Matthew 20:25 ought not be interpreted in such a manner so as to exclude loving leadership.

I am curious to know what 'first among equals' looks like in practice.

This is a passage I almost never see Catholics or the Catholic Church touch on.

I have heard it at least alluded to when the pope is called the Servant of the servants of God.

 

[Stabat Mater dolorosa]

First among equals, the church should be run by councils.
The pope as primus inter pares should hold higher esteem, but no infallibility.
Papal primacy is easily defendable, supremacy is most definitely not.

 

[chevyontheriver]

The way people see the pope today is idolatry and should be condemned as breaking the 1st commandment.

It was easy for me to see pope John Paul II as a bit more than I should. Same with pope Benedict. They were giants whose flaws were hard to see for their strengths. Yes, they had flaws, but they were good men. Now comes pope Francis and things are upended. There are people who think he is the coming of the Messiah it seems, or at least the coming of Elijah, and I don't see that at all. I have had to tighten up my understanding of infallibility quite a bit. While more liberal and modernists fellows seem to have discovered papal infallibility for the first time. It is very jarring. Yes, I went too far with the last two good popes. I see that now. It's like it's being rubbed in my face with the idolatry of pope Francis by people who would overturn the faith if they could.

What you are considering makes sense in light of all of this. I could almost agree with you. Thousands of other people have already done it, gone East or gone elsewhere. The Catholic Church gained people before Vatican II. It lost more than it gained after Vatican II, but it gained quite a few thinking and committed Christians all the same. Right now I think we are no longer gaining as many of them. This is crisis time. It would not be without Francis, without the Parolins and McCarricks and Maradiagas and Cupichs. But that is the problem, and not Pastor Aeternas read in light of Lumen Gentium. It is a humiliating problem, one that saps our hope, one that will not be cured without prayer and fasting and may be a signal for the Lord's return. How are we faithful going uphill?

 

[Beloved2018]

In PA the church defends its teaching by referring to councils and among those Constantinople VI, but conveniently jumping past Constantinople III which dealt with pope Honorius' post mortem.

Well there ya go, shouldn't this answer the dilemma and ease everyone's conscience? We've had a heretical pope in the past and he was dealt with (albeit after he died). The point is, there's a precedence. And it preceded Vatican I (which means Vatican I had to be written in light of it). I'm still trying to understand how the promulgations of that council detracts from Christ anyways.

 

[Beloved2018]

First among equals, the church should be run by councils.
The pope as primus inter pares should hold higher esteem, but no infallibility.
Papal primacy is easily defendable, supremacy is most definitely not.

What does 'esteem' mean? What does it look like?

 

[Stabat Mater dolorosa]

What does 'esteem' mean? What does it look like?

Honorary title.

 

[Stabat Mater dolorosa]

It was easy for me to see pope John Paul II as a bit more than I should. Same with pope Benedict. They were giants whose flaws were hard to see for their strengths. Yes, they had flaws, but they were good men. Now comes pope Francis and things are upended. There are people who think he is the coming of the Messiah it seems, or at least the coming of Elijah, and I don't see that at all. I have had to tighten up my understanding of infallibility quite a bit. While more liberal and modernists fellows seem to have discovered papal infallibility for the first time. It is very jarring. Yes, I went too far with the last two good popes. I see that now. It's like it's being rubbed in my face with the idolatry of pope Francis by people who would overturn the faith if they could.

What you are considering makes sense in light of all of this. I could almost agree with you. Thousands of other people have already done it, gone East or gone elsewhere. The Catholic Church gained people before Vatican II. It lost more than it gained after Vatican II, but it gained quite a few thinking and committed Christians all the same. Right now I think we are no longer gaining as many of them. This is crisis time. It would not be without Francis, without the Parolins and McCarricks and Maradiagas and Cupichs. But that is the problem, and not Pastor Aeternas read in light of Lumen Gentium. It is a humiliating problem, one that saps our hope, one that will not be cured without prayer and fasting and may be a signal for the Lord's return. How are we faithful going uphill?

You make some valid points brother.

 

[Beloved2018]

It was easy for me to see pope John Paul II as a bit more than I should. Same with pope Benedict. They were giants whose flaws were hard to see for their strengths. Yes, they had flaws, but they were good men. Now comes pope Francis and things are upended.....

I'm sorry to keep interfering...okay...I have to say something here....and I say this believing JPII is alive and well with our Lord in heavenly glory....Francis didn't come out of thin air...I remember JPII also doing some questionable stuff like kissing a Koran.

 

[Beloved2018]

Honorary title.

So it doesn't really mean anything...it has no real world application?

 

[Markie Boy]

First among equals, the church should be run by councils.
The pope as primus inter pares should hold higher esteem, but no infallibility.
Papal primacy is easily defendable, supremacy is most definitely not.

Exactly! A fair - non-biased study of the first couple hundred years of the Church seems to show this as the standard.

What we have today with Supremacy seems to be late evolution of thought.

 

[Beloved2018]

Exactly! A fair - non-biased study of the first couple hundred years of the Church seems to show this as the standard.

What we have today with Supremacy seems to be late evolution of thought.

Going back to Scripture......

 

[Stabat Mater dolorosa]

Going back to Scripture......

Going back to scripture leads us the y50 and the council of Jerusalem.
St. Paul's corrected the growing heresy of St. Peter.
Nowhere did Peter say; "hey, listen up I'm infallible. Submit to me!".
No the humble Saint stood corrected.

 

[Stabat Mater dolorosa]

So it doesn't really mean anything...it has no real world application?

Leading the word, speaking on the behalf of the catholic church , but possibly subject of an council.
If the council ruled and issued anathema then he should be considered anathema.

As long as in agreement with the council of bishops he should be treated with great reverence and dignity.