curious about knowledge

[dairygirl4u2c]

Just because you know of them doesn't mean you're masters at it..


You do have that whole Eucharist argument pretty well established. It's the only thing that's got me wonderin...

who knows, maybe I should become an orthodox that longs for the day when Rome was just influential.

Or maybe I should study the eucharist more.

[Paphnutius]

Yeah i admit i dont know a lot about Peterine Primacy. Oops

[epiclesis]

It's dificult to choose which one is the littlest. How big is a geocentricity?

[argent_paladin]

I chose "I refuse to speculate..." because it is an absurd answer to an absurd question, it ends with elipses so I can pretend that there is a reason behind it, finally, it is true because in order to answer the question properly one would have to know how much there is to know and how much one knows. , two very difficult things. Plus, its "least" not "littlest".

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='argent_paladin' date='Mar 12 2005, 02:22 AM'] I chose "I refuse to speculate..." because it is an absurd answer to an absurd question, it ends with elipses so I can pretend that there is a reason behind it, finally, it is true because in order to answer the question properly one would have to know how much there is to know and how much one knows. , two very difficult things. Plus, its "least" not "littlest". [/quote]
Just curious:

Would you respond that way if your diocese put out a very similiar poll using the word "least" instead of "littlest?"

[peach_cube]

I voted geocentricity, because I don't know much that shows it to be true. I know I ton about heliocentricity, but beyond the explanation of the "music of the spheres" and epicycles that are included in any history of Astronomy I don't know much else. I guess that since I know alot about heliocentric explanations, physics, and quantitative data that I perhaps shouldn't have voted for it?

[Myles Domini]

I think I'd say I know the least about indulgences and geocentricity. But I didnt answer your poll because I dont consider my little is much short of a lot. I have watched the threads here with amusement as people rolled the geocentricity argument back and forth. I heard once that most of the problems of philosophy arise out of people going down roads they shouldnt have started along in the first place and I think that was Wittgenstein's point. However, before I go off on a tangent. I will say the following things.
Indulgences are cool I've actually just got one for fulfiling the Eucharistic year devotion and I'm looking forward to Divine Mercy devotion. They are rooted in the Church's understanding of the Old Testament doctrine of a Jubilee year and there is plenty of other information out there on these things.
Also the recent quarrels instigated by LL about the Galileo incident betray an improper understanding of both the events and the premises behind. I recall someone pointing out Galileo was condemned principally because he said the Bible contained errors, not that the interpretation was errant but that the Bible itself was wrong. Naturally, no Catholic past, present or future would possibly accept this. Moreover, he couldnt prove his theory. Peach Cube can correct me but to my knowledge Newton did that. If I dont know that 'help, I may've flunked Creation Theology' in my first year exams on Friday The greatest testament to the fact that the entire issue has been blown out of proportion is that Galileo didnt die. The Church burnt hundreds of heretics in the 17th century and nobody is trying to cover that up. But Galileo got to live in a palace precisely because the Church was willing to allow him to propose his theory as theoretically true but not certain. If people actually investigate the background to the controversy they can confirm this for themselves. Deductive logic only works if your premises are correct people, if you dont know the background behind why the Church acted as it did you wont understand what it did. However, that Galileo didnt end up with a green candle between his hands roasting in the flames should be everyone's startpoint.
As for the doctrine of 'outside of the Church there is no salvation' this is 100% correct and always has been. Vatican II didnt change this and nobody can because its part of the deposit of faith. However, our understanding of the doctrine has changed. One can, for instance, be an annoymous Catholic. Saved by invicible igorance that the Church is the one vessel of salvation. After all you cant commit a mortal sin without full knowledge and full consent. And the Church holds that if you do know the Church is the true Church and you do consent to reject her you go to Hell. Moreover, everyone who is saved is saved through the Church's Eucharist. It is the Eucharistic sacrifice that opened the gates of Heaven and its because we continue the observance of that covenant that they stay open. If they dont then everyone goes to Hell. Outside of the Church there is no salvation.
And if people say what about the fact that Catholics say that Orthodox sacraments are valid then I would say they should read the Acts of the Council of Florence in the 15th century. If they did that they would see that there were no formal acts of reconciliation etc. because both sides understood themselves to be part of the same Church just alienated from each other. The East-West schism is within not without the body of Christ. The 2000 magisterial document 'Dominus Iesus' issued by the Sacred Congregation by the Doctrine of the Faith explains this, especially in its note on the term 'sister churches'.
As for the primacy of the Bishop of Rome there has never been a time when this was just influence and indeed as time went on this perception only grew. In times of heresy appeals were made to Rome as the defender of doctrine and as dogma became more and more concrete this appeals were made with increasing frequency. For example:

[b]St Ignatius of Antioch[/b]

"Ignatius . . . to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father" (Letter to the Romans 1:1 [A.D. 110]).

"You [the church at Rome] have envied no one, but others you have taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force" (ibid., 3:1).

[b]St Irenaeus [/b]

"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).

[b]Eusebius of Caesarea[/b]

"A question of no small importance arose at that time [A.D. 190]. For the parishes of all Asia [Minor], as from an older tradition held that the fourteenth day of the moon, on which the Jews were commanded to sacrifice the lamb, should be observed as the feast of the Savior’s Passover. . . . But it was not the custom of the churches in the rest of the world . . . as they observed the practice which, from apostolic tradition, has prevailed to the present time, of terminating the fast [of Lent] on no other day than on that of the resurrection of the Savior [Sunday]. Synods and assemblies of bishops were held on this account, and all, with one consent, through mutual correspondence drew up an ecclesiastical decree that the mystery of the resurrection of the Lord should be celebrated on no other but the Lord’s day and that we should observe the close of the paschal fast on this day only. . . . Thereupon [Pope] Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the community the parishes of all Asia [Minor], with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox. And he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicate. But this did not please all the bishops, and they besought him to consider the things of peace and of neighborly unity and love. . . . [Irenaeus] fittingly admonishes Victor that he should not cut off whole churches of God which observed the tradition of an ancient custom" (Church History 5:23:1–24:11).

"Thus then did Irenaeus entreat and negotiate [with Pope Victor] on behalf of the peace of the churches—[Irenaeus being] a man well-named, for he was a peacemaker both in name and character. And he corresponded by letter not only with Victor, but also with very many and various rulers of churches" (ibid., 24:18).

[b]Pope Julius I [/b]

"[The] judgment [concerning Athanasius] ought to have been made, not as it was, but according to the ecclesiastical canon. It behooved all of you to write us so that the justice of it might be seen as emanating from all. ... Are you ignorant that the custom has been to write first to us and then for a just decision to be passed from this place [Rome]? If, then, any such suspicion rested upon the bishop there [Athanasius of Alexandria], notice of it ought to have been written to the church here. But now, after having done as they pleased, they want to obtain our concurrence, although we never condemned him. Not thus are the constitutions of Paul, not thus the traditions of the Fathers. This is another form of procedure, and a novel practice. ... What I write about this is for the common good. For what we have heard from the blessed apostle Peter, these things I signify to you" (Letter on Behalf of Athanasius [A.D. 341], in Athanasius, Apology Against the Arians 20–35).

[b]Council of Sardica[/b]

"[I]f any bishop loses the judgment in some case [decided by his fellow bishops] and still believes that he has not a bad but a good case, in order that the case may be judged anew . . . let us honor the memory of the apostle Peter by having those who have given the judgment write to Julius, Bishop of Rome, so that if it seem proper he may himself send arbiters and the judgment may be made again by the bishops of a neighboring province" (canon 3 [A.D. 342]).

"[I]f some bishop be deposed by the judgment of the bishops sitting in the neighborhood, and if he declare that he will seek further redress, another should not be appointed to his see until the bishop of Rome can be acquainted with the case and render a judgment" (canon 4).

[b]St Jerome [/b]

"I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but your blessedness [Pope Damasus I], that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock on which the Church has been built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane. Anyone who is not in the ark of Noah will perish when the flood prevails" (Letters 15:2 [A.D. 396]).

"The church here is split into three parts, each eager to seize me for its own. . . . Meanwhile I keep crying, ‘He that is joined to the chair of Peter is accepted by me!’ . . . Therefore, I implore your blessedness [Pope Damasus I] . . . tell me by letter with whom it is that I should communicate in Syria" (ibid., 16:2).

[b]Council of Ephesus [/b]

"Philip, presbyter and legate of [Pope Celestine I] said: ‘We offer our thanks to the holy and venerable synod, that when the writings of our holy and blessed pope had been read to you, the holy members, by our holy voices, you joined yourselves to the holy head also by your holy acclamations. For your blessedness is not ignorant that the head of the whole faith, the head of the apostles, is blessed Peter the apostle. And since now [we], after having been tempest-tossed and much vexed, [have] arrived, we ask that you order that there be laid before us what things were done in this holy synod before our arrival; in order that according to the opinion of our blessed pope and of this present holy assembly, we likewise may ratify their determination’" (Acts of the Council, session 2 [A.D. 431]).

[b]Pope St Leo I [/b]

"Our Lord Jesus Christ . . . established the worship belonging to the divine religion. . . . But the Lord desired that the sacrament of this gift should pertain to all the apostles in such a way that it might be found principally in the most blessed Peter, the highest of all the apostles. And he wanted his gifts to flow into the entire body from Peter himself, as if from the head, in such a way that anyone who had dared to separate himself from the solidarity of Peter would realize that he was himself no longer a sharer in the divine mystery. . . . [You, my brothers], must realize with us, of course, that the Apostolic See—out of reverence for it, I mean—has on countless occasions been reported to in consultation by bishops even of your own province [Vienne]. And through the appeal of various cases to this see, decisions already made have been either revoked or confirmed, as dictated by long-standing custom" (Letters 10:2–3 [A.D. 445]).

"As for the resolution of the bishops which is contrary to the Nicene decree, in union with your faithful piety, I declare it to be invalid and annul it by the authority of the holy apostle Peter" (ibid., 110).

"If in your view, [Anastasius of Thessalonica], in regard to a matter to be handled and decided jointly with your brothers, their decision was other than what you wanted, then let the entire matter, with a record of the proceedings, be referred to us. . . . Although bishops have a common dignity, they are not all of the same rank. Even among the most blessed apostles, though they were alike in honor, there was a certain distinction of power. All were equal in being chosen [to be apostles], but it was given to one to be preeminent over the others. . . . [So today through the bishops] the care of the universal Church would converge in the one see of Peter, and nothing should ever be at odds with this head" (ibid., 14:11).

[b]Council of Chalcedon [/b]

"Bishop Paschasinus, guardian of the Apostolic See, stood in the midst [of the Council Fathers] and said, ‘We received directions at the hands of the most blessed and apostolic bishop of the Roman city [Pope Leo I], who is the head of all the churches, which directions say that Dioscorus is not to be allowed to sit in the [present] assembly, but that if he should attempt to take his seat, he is to be cast out. This instruction we must carry out" (Acts of the Council, session 1 [A.D. 451]).

"After the reading of the foregoing epistle [The Tome of Leo], the most reverend bishops cried out: ‘This is the faith of the fathers! This is the faith of the apostles! So we all believe! Thus the orthodox believe! Anathema to him who does not thus believe! Peter has spoken thus through Leo!’" (ibid., session 2).

[b]Emperor Justinian I [/b]

Writing to the Pope, ...

Yielding honor to the Apostolic See and to Your Holiness, and honoring your Holiness, as one ought to honor a father, we have hastened to subject all the priests of the whole Eastern district, and to unite them to the See of your Holiness, for we do not allow of any point, however manifest and indisputable it be, which relates to the state of the Churches, not being brought to the cognizance of your Holiness, since you are the Head of all the holy Churches. (Justinian Epist. ad. Pap. Joan. ii. Cod. Justin. lib. I. tit. 1).

Let your Apostleship show that you have worthily succeeded to the Apostle Peter, since the Lord will work through you, as Surpreme Pastor, the salvation of all. (Coll. Avell. Ep. 196, July 9th, 520, Justinian to Pope Hormisdas).

[b]Stephen, Bishop of Dora in Palestine[/b]

And for this cause, sometimes we ask for water to our head and to our eyes a fountain of tears, sometimes the wings of a dove, according to holy David, that we might fly away and announce these things to the Chair (the Chair of Peter at Rome) which rules and presides over all, I mean to yours, the head and highest, for the healing of the whole wound. For this it has been accustomed to do from old and from the beginning with power by its canonical or apostolic authority, because the truly great Peter, head of the Apostles, was clearly thought worthy not only to be trusted with the keys of heaven, alone apart from the rest, to open it worthily to believers, or to close it justly to those who disbelieve the Gospel of grace, but because he was also commissioned to feed the sheep of the whole Catholic Church; for 'Peter,' saith He, 'lovest thou Me? Feed My sheep.' And again, because he had in a manner peculiar and special, a faith in the Lord stronger than all and unchangeable, to be converted and to confirm his fellows and spiritual brethren when tossed about, as having been adorned by God Himself incarnate for us with power and sacerdotal authority .....And Sophronius of blessed memory, who was Patriarch of the holy city of Christ our God, and under whom I was bishop, conferring not with flesh and blood, but caring only for the things of Christ with respect to your Holiness, hastened to send my nothingness without delay about this matter alone to this Apostolic see, where are the foundations of holy doctrine.

[b]St. Maximus the Confessor [/b]

The extremities of the earth, and everyone in every part of it who purely and rightly confess the Lord, look directly towards the Most Holy Roman Church and her confession and faith, as to a sun of unfailing light awaiting from her the brilliant radiance of the sacred dogmas of our Fathers, according to that which the inspired and holy Councils have stainlessly and piously decreed. For, from the descent of the Incarnate Word amongst us, all the churches in every part of the world have held the greatest Church alone to be their base and foundation, seeing that, according to the promise of Christ Our Savior, the gates of hell will never prevail against her, that she has the keys of the orthodox confession and right faith in Him, that she opens the true and exclusive religion to such men as approach with piety, and she shuts up and locks every heretical mouth which speaks against the Most High. (Maximus, Opuscula theologica et polemica, Migne, Patr. Graec. vol. 90)

How much more in the case of the clergy and Church of the Romans, which from old until now presides over all the churches which are under the sun? Having surely received this canonically, as well as from councils and the apostles, as from the princes of the latter (Peter & Paul), and being numbered in their company, she is subject to no writings or issues in synodical documents, on account of the eminence of her pontificate .....even as in all these things all are equally subject to her (the Church of Rome) according to sacerodotal law. And so when, without fear, but with all holy and becoming confidence, those ministers (the popes) are of the truly firm and immovable rock, that is of the most great and Apostolic Church of Rome. (Maximus, in J.B. Mansi, ed. Amplissima Collectio Conciliorum, vol. 10)

If the Roman See recognizes Pyrrhus to be not only a reprobate but a heretic, it is certainly plain that everyone who anathematizes those who have rejected Pyrrhus also anathematizes the See of Rome, that is, he anathematizes the Catholic Church. I need hardly add that he excommunicates himself also, if indeed he is in communion with the Roman See and the Catholic Church of God ...Let him hasten before all things to satisfy the Roman See, for if it is satisfied, all will agree in calling him pious and orthodox. For he only speaks in vain who thinks he ought to pursuade or entrap persons like myself, and does not satisfy and implore the blessed Pope of the most holy Catholic Church of the Romans, that is, the Apostolic See, which is from the incarnate of the Son of God Himself, and also all the holy synods, accodring to the holy canons and definitions has received universal and surpreme dominion, authority, and power of binding and loosing over all the holy churches of God throughout the whole world. (Maximus, Letter to Peter, in Mansi x, 692).

[b]John VI, Patriarch of Constantinople [/b]

The Pope of Rome, the head of the Christian priesthood, whom in Peter, the Lord commanded to confirm his brethren. (John VI, Epist. ad Constantin. Pap. ad. Combefis, Auctuar. Bibl. P.P. Graec.tom. ii. p. 211, seq.)

[b]St Theodore the Studite [/b]

Writing to Pope Leo III ....

Since to great Peter Christ our Lord gave the office of Chief Shepherd after entrusting him with the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, to Peter or his successor must of necessity every novelty in the Catholic Church be referred. [Therefore], save us, oh most divine Head of Heads, Chief Shepherd of the Church of Heaven. (Theodore, Bk. I. Ep. 23)

Writing to Pope Paschal, ...

Hear, O Apostolic Head, divinely-appointed Shepherd of Christ's sheep, keybearer of the Kingdom of Heaven, Rock of the Faith upon whom the Catholic Church is built. For Peter art thou, who adornest and governest the Chair of Peter. Hither, then, from the West, imitator of Christ, arise and repel not for ever (Ps. xliii. 23). To thee spake Christ our Lord: 'And thou being one day converted, shalt strengthen thy brethren.' Behold the hour and the place. Help us, thou that art set by God for this. Stretch forth thy hand so far as thou canst. Thou hast strength with God, through being the first of all. (Letter of St. Theodore and four other Abbots to Pope Paschal, Bk. ii Ep. 12, Patr. Graec. 99, 1152-3)

Writing to Emperor Michael, ...

Order that the declaration from old Rome be received, as was the custom by Tradition of our Fathers from of old and from the beginning. For this, O Emperor, is the highests of the Churches of God, in which first Peter held the Chair, to whom the Lord said: Thou art Peter ...and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. (Theodore, Bk. II. Ep. 86)

I witness now before God and men, they have torn themselves away from the Body of Christ, from the Surpreme See (Rome), in which Christ placed the keys of the Faith, against which the gates of hell (I mean the mouth of heretics) have not prevailed, and never will until the Consummation, according to the promise of Him Who cannot lie. Let the blessed and Apostolic Paschal (Pope St. Paschal I) rejoice therefore, for he has fulfilled the work of Peter. (Theodore Bk. II. Ep. 63).

In truth we have seen that a manifest successor of the prince of the Apostles presides over the Roman Church. We truly believe that Christ has not deserted the Church here (Constantinople), for assistance from you has been our one and only aid from of old and from the beginning by the providence of God in the critical times. You are, indeed the untroubled and pure fount of orthodoxy from the beginning, you the calm harbor of the whole Church, far removed from the waves of heresy, you the God-chosen city of refuge. (Letter of St. Theodor & Four Abbots to Pope Paschal).

Let him (Patriarch Nicephorus of Constantinople) assemble a synod of those with whom he has been at variance, if it is impossible that representatives of the other Patriarchs should be present, a thing which might certainly be if the Emperor should wish the Western Patriarch (the Roman Pope) to be present, to whom is given authority over an ecumenical synod; but let him make peace and union by sending his synodical letters to the prelate of the First See. (Theodore the Studite, Patr. Graec. 99, 1420)

To make my point I took these quotes entirely from Eastern sources (Jerome counts as a respected St of the Eastern Church who was a friend of St Gregory the Theologian--one of the 4 Greek Doctors) and from them I think its clear from them that the Bishop of Rome is always the ultimate authority when he speaks in faith and morals but alas thats the subject of another thread, as is the issue of the most Blessed Sacrament. Thus I'll be content with this and finish by calling to mind the words of Our Lord about the rock upon which the Church is built:

"Tu es Petrus..."

If you truly do hanker for the Eucharist dairygirl then please come home to us. We can do with Catholics as persistent as you in the civil war against modernism and the war we are waging for the soul of the culture of death.

Consider it, yes?

God Bless
Myles

[thessalonian]

The fact is that we know so little really about all of them with perhaps the exception of geocentricity. Indulgences, the Eucharist, and the realation of the Church with God, including the papacy involve mystery and God. In reality what is behind them is likely infinite and beyond our understanding. Those who think they really know and understand do not.

I've told this before but a man wanted to become Catholic but could not understand the trinity. The priest (it may have been fulton sheen, I might have heard it from him) said I will not baptize you. Some time later the man came back and wanted to be baptized because he said he fully understood the trinity. The priest said "I cannot baptize you". A part of having faith is understanding that we cannot fully understand. A part of becoming Cathoic is knowing that you don't know but accepting because God says it. Study the Eucharist more by all means. Study the Papacy and geocentricity and indulgences. But until your ready and willing to put your trust in God you'll have to remain a protestant who must quantifiably understand all about God and your beliefs.

God bless

God bless

[jasJis]

dairygirl,
Look up the work mystagogy.