papal act

[dairygirl4u2c]

Somebody please show one act by the pope before the false decretals that clearly demonstrate that he has the authority that RC's say he has.

(also please refer to the papist popery of the papacy thread for more information)

[phatcatholic]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Nov 27 2004, 05:46 PM'] Somebody please show one act by the pope before the false decretals that clearly demonstrate that he has the authority that RC's say he has.

(also please refer to the papist popery of the papacy thread for more information) [/quote]
the false decretals were composed between 847 and 852. so, Pope Clement's [url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1010.htm"][b]Epistle to the Corinthians[/b][/url], written between 88 and 97 AD, constitutes an act of authority on behalf of a pope long before the decretals.

the Corinthians pleaded to the Church of Rome and to the pope to address the divisions that disturbed the church in Corinth. they would not have done so if they did not regard Pope Clement as a man with authority in the Church. this letter is Clement's response, an act of authority in which Clement uses his obvious position of authority to address and resolve the issues at hand.

in his letter, Clement writes as a man in authority making an authoritative act. he advises the church regarding what it must do to heal the wounds of division and he asks that word be sent to him as soon as peace is established.

it is also obvious that the early Church long considered this letter to be an act of authority, for it was read in all the churches as words to be faithfully followed and was even considered inspired by God until the canon of the Bible was finally decided in the late fourth century.

if Clement's writing of an epistle to the Corinthians is not an act of authority, i don't know what is.


please read over my post several times and make sure that you understand it before you respond.

pax christi,
phatcatholic

Edited November 28, 2004 by phatcatholic

[dairygirl4u2c]

I apologize for not pointing specifically to the issue in the papist popery thread that I wanted you to note. I wanted you to note the large and influential church notion.

This notion essentially can render all your evidence as not "clearly". Note that I said clearly.

[quote]clearly demonstrate that he has the authority that RC's say he has.[/quote]


Reading of his writings and seeking of his advice does not demonstrate the authority that the Catholic Church says that he had. clearly.

I think I'll have to concede that the Catholic Church may be true based on the setup of the early church (if I set aside all the evidence against the Catholic Church besides that), but I think you'll have to admit that it may not be true. If you can admit that intellectually, but your faith does not allow admitting it, then please make that distinction. My faith follows my intellect so I can admit my margins of error and make reasonable inferences from them.



Please read over my posts several times and make sure that you understand them before you respond.

thanx

Edited November 28, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[Guest Aluigi]

Rome in the early Church was large and influential. The only reason anyone gave for that was the fact that Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, ended up there and had trained his successor there. All other churches listened to the Roman Church, she held influence over every other church and none even considered disobeying. They sought her advice, and cited her as the final say in issues so that they were sure.

Rome today is large and influential. The only reason anyone today gives for that is that the successor to St. Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, resides there and the Cardinals who will choose the new successor reside there as well. All other churches listen to the Roman Church, she has influence over every other church and those that disobey her are dealt with by her authority. They seek her advice, and cite her as the final say on issues so that they are sure.

With that, I reassert phatcatholic's papal act as evidence and say that that "large and influential" is the same authority Rome holds over the Church today, and it exists because of St. Peter.

I could admit all you could show in the Early Church is that it was very large and very influential thus considered authoritative by the other churches for no other reason that that Ss Peter (mainly Peter) and Paul had commissioned them to be such a central See of the Church.

Edited November 28, 2004 by Aluigi

[thessalonian]

My guess is that nothing will be clear enough for you but here are a few of the many times that the early Church looked toward Rome.

Clement's letter has been mentioned. What should be noted about it is that Clement lived in Rome which was 600 miles from Corinth. John the Apostle was still alive at the time of this letter and ony 200 miles away. Now why did the Cornithians appeal to Clement rather than John? Every indication is that the Cornithians submitted to Clement. Once again very strange if Clement had no authority beyond his diocese of Rome of which Corinth was far outside the bounds


Augustine uses the fac that there were no dotanists as successors of Peter as evidence against them. Why is this significant? Because according to Ignatius and Irenaus, the Roman Church contains the pure faith with no error. Thus if there were no dotanists among the Roman Biships, Donatisim is false:

"" The successor of Peter was Linus, and his successors in unbroken continuity were these: -- Clement, Anacletus, Evaristus, Alexander, Sixtus, Telesphorus, Iginus, Anicetus, Pius, Soter, Eleutherius, Victor, Zephirinus, Calixtus, Urbanus, Pontianus, Antherus, Fabianus, Cornelius, Lucius, Stephanus, Xystus, Dionysius, Felix, Eutychianus, Gaius, Marcellinus, Marcellus, Eusebius, Miltiades, Sylvester, Marcus, Julius, Liberius, Damasus, and Siricius, whose successor is the present Bishop Anastasius. In this order of succession no Donatist bishop is found. But, reversing the natural course of things, the Donatists sent to Rome from Africa an ordained bishop, who, putting himself at the head of a few Africans in the great metropolis, gave some notoriety to the name of "mountain men," or Cutzupits, by which they were known. "


Incidently the very fact that there were many Anti-popes of whom this apparently was one, along with Novatian, and Hippolatus long before Constantine (mid third century), indicates that there was something special about Rome. There were a few anti-bishops in other places but very few who claimed to be heads of the worldwide Church as the anti-popes did. The very fact that to claim to be Bishop of Rome meant you were a target of the pagan Government adds credence to the claim that there was great authority of that seat in the Christian world. It certainly didn't gain them any points in the political world at the time of these early anti-popes.

Local Synods recognized the authority of the roman Church before Constantine:

BISHOP GAUDENTIUS said: It ought to be added, if it be your pleasure, to this sentence full of sanctity which thou hast pronounced, that--when any bishop has been deposed by the judgment of those bishops who have sees in neighbouring places, and he [the bishop deposed] shall announce that his case is to be examined in the city of Rome--that no other bishop shall in any wise be ordained to his see, after the appeal of him who is apparently deposed, unless the case shall have been determined in the judgment of the Roman bishop.

This from a local synod headed by Cyprian.

I just grabbed a few things from my ECF Archives. These could be multiplied. In my study it is quite clear thta Rome had a special place in the Authority of the early Church as well as in doctrinal matters. The only difference then and today seems to me to be that the dogmas associated with Roman Bishop authority weren't enunciated as clearly as they are today.

God bless

[dtofdh]

In regards to your question about whether or not Catholics can intellectually question the Church's position, I would like to interject some thoughts.

A Catholic may have many questions about Church teaching, and may not understand (to his own satisfaction) the reasons justifying Church teaching. This does not mean that the Church has not arrived at a correct conclusion on a given issue. All Catholics, at one time or another may have doubts, confusion, or a feeling that they have unanswered questions. This does not mean that they are in conflict with the Church. Even the Apostle Thomas doubted the resurrection of our Lord and insisted that it would have to be proven to him. Of course that did not in anyway nullify the fact and reality of the Lord's Resurrection. It also did not undermine Thomas' standing as a true believer. Eventually his doubts were brought to the proper light, and this is the same for us.

As any Catholic, who is in a continuous state of learning about the faith, I may have doubts, or confusion about any given issue. I can admit this honestly, whole-heartedly and without any fear of contradicting my Faith. This is because I understand that while I, in the limited time I have spent examining the Faith, have not examined all of the evidence as of yet. The Church, on the other hand, has spent centuries painstakenly examining all of the evidence. I trust that the Church, which was founded by the Apostles themselves, and with Her Christ given authority, does offer us the truth under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. This is not by the Church's design, this is by Christ's design. The Church is here to guard and guide us in the truth. The more I invest in my studies in Church teaching, the more everything begins to make sense. My confusion or doubts become answered to my own satisfaction, ( and often to my own wonder and amazement!) I begin to see how clear it all is, and how much sense it makes. I trust the Church to lead me in the truth of Christ. I do not become disheartened or proclaim the Church to be in error, simply because I do not yet understand...And that makes me a faithful Catholic.

"Lord, I do believe....Help my unbelief."

In Christ's Love,
Gina

[phatcatholic]

dairygirl,

why would the church of corinth consult a large and influential church about doctrinal divisions? one consults a large and influential church because they need money, or military support, or trade routes, or some other material reason..........not because they have matters of doctrine and division within the church that need to be settled. with matters such as these, you turn to the one who can give you spiritual support, to the church that holds primacy and to the man who is the head of all spiritual matters for your church. it is obvious that the corinithians considered Clement to be the highest authority on this matter, or they would not have bothered to address an individual so far away.

it just makes no sense that the church at corinth would consult Rome because it was "large and influential." their concerns had nothing to do w/ the money or power that Rome happened to possess at the time.

pax christi,
phatcatholic

[phatcatholic]

bump.............for dairygirl

[God Conquers]

The Church in Corinth at the time would probably have been just as large and probably as influential....it was established before the Church in Rome.