Difference between Orthodoxs and Catholics

[MattMMMan17]

This has turned into a debate which I will not participate in, per forum rules. Goodbye

 

[Bushido216]

Let's not be angry. Let's have a drink instead! Bushmills or Jamesons, my friend? I'm buying this round.

I'm the DD, honestly, but I swear that there isn't much Italian blood in my Irish alcohol stream.

 

[Montalban]

Good Day, Montalban

"This also lead them into errors such as the Immaculate Conception (which many think is the conception of Jesus inside Mary, the Theotokos, but is in fact the conception of Mary inside Anna), and on Papal Infallibility, which even Pope John XXII argued against."

I was interested in you comments here about Pope John's argument of the infallibility of the Pope. It is my understanding the prior to the 4 TH (Pope Stephen) century this was unheard of in the world of Christianity? Would you know the basis of the argument made by John XXII and the year in which his argument was made.

Thank you,

BBAS

According to a book I got recently it says "In 1324, Pope John XXII condemned Papal infallibility as a pernicious novelty"

Whelton, M (1998), "Two Paths: Papal Monarchy - Collegial Tradition", p126.

And here he himself is quoting Tierney, B, (1972) "Origins of Papal Infallibility", p188

The story goes something like this; the Franciscans got a ruling from one pope that accorded their notion of poverty with great status. A later pope, John XXII realising this was a mistake, set about to reverse the ruling. The Franciscans argued that what one pope ruled, another pope couldn't over-rule; because of the novel idea of papal infallibility. John XXII rejected this idea too, realising that it would hamstring future Popes by decisions made in the past.

I don't seem to be able to post links (so just cut/past and add 3 w's to the beginning....

In 1324 Pope John XXII condemned this idea as the work of the devil
population-security.org/19-CH11.html

also...
stlukesrec.org/sermons01/20trin01.html

 

[Montalban]

This has turned into a debate which I will not participate in, per forum rules. Goodbye

Slan leat go feoil, mo chara.

 

[prodromos]

For instance did you know that Crusaders when sent to free Constantinople from the Moslim rule they sacked the city and robbed the churches instead.

I realise a few days have passed since this was posted, but I've been meaning to comment on this ever since I first read it.

The Crusaders were not on their way to free Constantinople from Moslim rule, they were on their way to Egypt, which had then become the centre of Moslem power. Being a mostly French force, they lacked a naval presence in the Mediterranean and thus sought the aid of the Venetians. It was the ruler of the Venetians who bribed the Crusaders and convinced them to make Constantinople their destination instead of Cairo.

John.

 

[BBAS 64]

According to a book I got recently it says "In 1324, Pope John XXII condemned Papal infallibility as a pernicious novelty"

Whelton, M (1998), "Two Paths: Papal Monarchy - Collegial Tradition", p126.

And here he himself is quoting Tierney, B, (1972) "Origins of Papal Infallibility", p188

The story goes something like this; the Franciscans got a ruling from one pope that accorded their notion of poverty with great status. A later pope, John XXII realising this was a mistake, set about to reverse the ruling. The Franciscans argued that what one pope ruled, another pope couldn't over-rule; because of the novel idea of papal infallibility. John XXII rejected this idea too, realising that it would hamstring future Popes by decisions made in the past

I don't seem to be able to post links (so just cut/past and add 3 w's to the beginning....

In 1324 Pope John XXII condemned this idea as the work of the devil
population-security.org/19-CH11.html

also...
stlukesrec.org/sermons01/20trin01.html

Thanks Again very interesting I will have to add this book to my list ..OH JOY...IT GETS LONGER ALL THE TIME


BBAS