Does the Roman Church focus on Peter too much

[fated]

As long as it works out to Roman catholicism's advantage, Eh?

The document is 700 years old. Not only that, but we are reading no doubt from a translation of a copy of it.

Do you think that the Pope was demanding control of the military forces of France?

If yes, I don't know where to go with you, I find that absurd.

I no, then what did he mean by subject?

According to newadvent:
"Consequently, when King Philip protested, Clement V was able, in his Brief "Meruit", of 1 February, 1306, to declare that the French king and France were to suffer no disadvantage on account of the Bull "Unam Sanctam", and that the issuing of this Bull had not made them subject to the authority of the Roman Church in any other manner than formerly. In this way, Clement V was able to give France and its ruler a guarantee of security from the ecclesiastico-political results of the opinions elaborated in the Bull, while its dogmatic decision suffered no detriment of any kind. In the struggles of the Gallican party against the authority of the Roman See, and also in the writings of non-Catholic authors against the definition of Papal Infallibility, the Bull "Unam Sanctam" was used against Boniface VIII as well as against the papal primacy in a manner not justified by its content. The statements concerning the relations between the spiritual and the secular power are of a purely historical character, so far as they do not refer to the nature of the spiritual power, and are based on the actual conditions of medieval Western Europe."

 

[Uphill Battle]

That assessment holds many things that are not stated. Others are simply historical fabrications. You are adding "not a limited scope,," which certainly makes the Church "look bad" but is very disrespectful to how the Church operates then and now. In short, what is the intent of this letter? Who was it written by? Who was the intended audience?

If you can't tell me these things, then you can't legitimately interpret the meaning of it.

of course not. Because "Every Human Creature" needs further explanation. You are using a context argument, where Context is readily apparent.

 

[fated]

As long as it works out to Roman catholicism's advantage, Eh?

And as long as you response is to your positions advantage right?

It is rather hypocritical to defend your position and then denigrate someone else for defending theirs.

I certainly hope your writing is as clear in 700 years as it is today... no one will be able to understand what you actually think...

 

[fated]

of course not. Because "Every Human Creature" needs further explanation. You are using a context argument, where Context is readily apparent.

You are subject to the Pope.

 

[Uphill Battle]

You are subject to the Pope.

I am no such thing.

 

[fated]

I am no such thing.

How do you know? Are you SURE?

 

[Rick Otto]

It was written 700 years ago. Context is necessary.

I didn't in any of the least of ways imply it wasn't.
Quite obviously every human creature with any concern about his salvation was a part of the intended audience.
If the pope was simply addressing France, he could've bothered to mention that, or used less global language.

Protestantism is full of buffoons & imbeciles who've risen to high status, but at least we can admit we make mistakes. At least we don't have to become logic contortionists & intellectualy dishonest to defend an "error free" reputation.

 

[Uphill Battle]

How do you know? Are you SURE?

because I reject the authority of the Pope. That's pretty clear.

 

[Rick Otto]

How do you know? Are you SURE?

Give us you're standard of measure for just such A thing, that we may be as sure as you,... or are you not sure yourself? Do you have any absolute realities or do the borders of your reality shift depending on circumstance?

 

[fated]

because I reject the authority of the Pope. That's pretty clear.

But are you sure you aren't under his authority?
The Bible says that you are.
R:"Does not."
It certainly might
R:"I don't think is does."
Are you infallible?
R:"No, but I use the Holy Spirit."

It's a good one. The Pope said that though he had defined primacy/infallibility in that statement, he did not change the nature of relations with the Pope and even that king. We can conclude, then, that the word "subject" means precisely what it did before the Pope wrote Unam Sanctus, or should we say, that it simply fit in relationship to how a the Pope can properly carry out his responsibilities. The word "subject" does not, after all, allow a person to excercise any authority whatsoever.

R:"Does so."
Does not, he clearly didn't mean it to!

 

[Uphill Battle]

But are you sure you aren't under his authority?
The Bible says that you are.
R:"Does not."
It certainly might
R:"I don't think is does."
Are you infallible?
R:"No, but I use the Holy Spirit."

It's a good one. The Pope said that though he had defined primacy/infallibility in that statement, he did not change the nature of relations with the Pope and even that king. We can conclude, then, that the word "subject" means precisely what it did before the Pope wrote Unam Sanctus, or should we say, that it simply fit in relationship to how a the Pope can properly carry out his responsibilities. The word "subject" does not, after all, allow a person to excercise any authority whatsoever.

R:"Does so."
Does not, he clearly didn't mean it to!

The Bible says no such thing.

the whole "are you infallible" argument is a wash here. Neither is the Pope. And nowhere does scripture state that every human must submit to a Pope. That's a 700 year old addendum by who? The one that wants that authority.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Like the ultimate way to keep your flock under your control, huh..

It is not 'under control' as you say.

If I live in the USA I have certain laws I follow. If I commit treason then what are the consequences?

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Unless "Every Human Creature" means Catholics, I'm afraid I can't agree with that assessment.

I am afraid that you and others are reading this in the context of our world today.

I think that this writing would be best understood in it's time and context.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I am afraid that you and others are reading this in the context of our world today.

I think that this writing would be best understood in it's time and context.

Yepperz.

1 Thessalonians 3:13 Into the stand-fast of ye, the hearts blameless in together-holiness before the God and Father of us in the Parousia <3952> of the Lord of us, Jesus Christ, with all of the holy-ones of Him.

James 5:8 be ye patient!, also stand-fast the hearts of ye, that the Parousia <3952> of the Lord has-neared/hggiken <1448> (5758);

Reve 19:11 And I perceived the heaven having be opened and Lo! A horse, white and the One sitting on it/him being called Faithful and True and in justice He is judging and is battling.

 

[Uphill Battle]

I am afraid that you and others are reading this in the context of our world today.

I think that this writing would be best understood in it's time and context.

I fail to see how "context" is relevant.

EVERY HUMAN CREATURE. (doesn't leave much to the imagination.)

are you able to give me a reasonable explanation about how "context" doesn't mean what it says it does?

 

[JacktheCatholic]

I fail to see how "context" is relevant.

EVERY HUMAN CREATURE. (doesn't leave much to the imagination.)

are you able to give me a reasonable explanation about how "context" doesn't mean what it says it does?

I am willing to discuss the last line of Unam Sanctum but I do not want to go off into symantecs with the word 'context'.

 

[Uphill Battle]

I am willing to discuss the last line of Unam Sanctum but I do not want to go off into symantecs with the word 'context'.

oh, sure. I don't want to make it onerous for you. Like I said, in the grand scheme of things, what a Pope that I have no allegience to said 700 odd years ago is rather irrelevant.

I am just not seeing how something that is stated as such, doesn't mean what it says. I am challenging the context argument, in that what Context can be deriven from every human creature, than every human creature.

just my POV.

 

[fated]

oh, sure. I don't want to make it onerous for you. Like I said, in the grand scheme of things, what a Pope that I have no allegience to said 700 odd years ago is rather irrelevant.

I am just not seeing how something that is stated as such, doesn't mean what it says. I am challenging the context argument, in that what Context can be deriven from every human creature, than every human creature.

just my POV.

I read it as "every human creature should be subject to the Pope."
And I see it as a valid moral teaching.
And I believe there is Biblical evidence.

According to your fallible POV I am incorrect.
According to my fallible POV you are incorrect.

The problem is always the same. The problem is that the Catholic Church claims it's POV come from the Apostles themselves. Do you have any evidence that you POV came from the Apostles? Just the way you interpret the Bible and the way the Holy Spirit tells you what it means...

I'll take history and precedence over "my personal interpretation."

 

[JacktheCatholic]

I am challenging the context argument, in that what Context can be deriven from every human creature, than every human creature.

Understood.

You have heard us (Catholics) speak of the church as mystical and as physically present. We say all baptized Christians are mystically part of the church. That those who profess the Catholic Faith as their own to be part of both the physical and mystical. This is what I have said and I know it could be put better but here it is.

Now keep this notion of the mystical church in the back of your mind.

Here is something I grabbed from Newadvent (a Catholic's favorite quote site). I only copied a portion of what they said about Unam Sanctum and I know as a protestant you will still find it insulting or upsetting.

Quote:

"Now, therefore, we declare, say, determine and pronounce that for every human creature it is necessary for salvation to be subject to the authority of the Roman pontiff" (Porro subesse Romano Pontifici omni humanae creaturae declaramus, dicimus, definimus, et pronuntiamus omnino esse de necessitate salutis).


The Bull is universal in character. As its content shows, a careful distinction is made between the fundamental principles concerning the Roman primacy and the declarations as to the application of these to the secular power and its representatives. In the registers, on the margin of the text of the record, the last sentence is noted as its real definition: "Declaratio quod subesse Romano Pontifici est omni humanae creaturae de necessitate salutis" (It is here stated that for salvation it is necessary that every human creature be subject to the authority of the Roman pontiff). This definition, the meaning and importance of which are clearly evident from the connection with the first part on the necessity of the one Church for salvation, and on the pope as the one supreme head of the Church, expresses the necessity for everyone who wishes to attain salvation of belonging to the Church, and therefore of being subject to the authority of the pope in all religious matters. This has been the constant teaching of the Church, and it was declared in the same sense by the Fifth Ecumenical Council of the Lateran, in 1516: "De necessitate esse salutis omnes Christi fideles Romano Pontifici subesse" (That it is of the necessity of salvation for all Christ's faithful to be subject to the Roman pontiff).

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I read it as "every human creature should be subject to the Pope."
And I see it as a valid moral teaching.
And I believe there is Biblical evidence.

According to your fallible POV I am incorrect.
According to my fallible POV you are incorrect.

The problem is always the same. The problem is that the Catholic Church claims it's POV come from the Apostles themselves. Do you have any evidence that you POV came from the Apostles? Just the way you interpret the Bible and the way the Holy Spirit tells you what it means...

I'll take history and precedence over "my personal interpretation."

Is that with or without appealing to the ECFs

LLOJ [NEVER appeals to the ECFs]

http://www.predestinarian.net/forum/index.php


Post # 44 The Roman Catholic (Western), Greek Orthodox (Eastern), and the Protestants (schismatics of the Western Church), love to appeal to the early fathers for their identity and foundation. Especially Rome and the Orthodox sects.