For The Sake Of

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1214444' date='Mar 16 2007, 06:58 AM']To Knight of Christ's 'DATA DUMP'.

I got tired of refuting the quotes that DO NOT have anything to do with and do not support Papal Infallibility. The quotes in fact, support my postion that the Pope is a Leader of the Bishops, not an independent authority. The quotes caution against bishops working outside of Tradtion. They support the practical application that questions are considered by multible bishops before the ultimate decision is decided by the Pope. None of the quotes support the Pope being able to act independent of Tradtion. You Catholics have to agree with that. Now how is that done? Obviously, for serious and weighty matter that are critical to the Faith, a COMPLETE Council is required FIRST. As far as the recent 'doctrine' of papal infallibility, it must be noted that a significant amount of Bishops, recognized as having Apostolic Authority and thus, considered to possess the Grace to transmit a portion of the Church's Tradtion, have been excluded.

If you disagree Knight, provide some RELEVANT quotes that speak specifically to these points. For what you provided, it's basically a shotgun answer that doesn't address the question is worth of someone like Budge'. If this matter is so True, Catholics should be able to support it with evidence and reason. If Catholics accept it without the support of Tradition and Reason, then it is nothing more than bring superstition as an authority within their 'religious organization'. Christian Religion has elements of the Divine, but Divinity is not all encompassing because God allows us imperferfect humans to bring in whatever error we can concieve. In other words, if there is an element of infallibility in the way a Religion exists, that infalliblity lies in God correcting, not in humans being free from error. When we start believing that human authority is perfect, we start rejecting God's divine correction.[/quote]

When did you ever really refute anything of what I posted? All I see here is your opinion and more questions, no data. Budge does not agree with early church fathers that do not match her beliefs so this evidence would mean nothing to her.

But here are more early church fathers before 500 AD supporting undoubtedly Papal Infallibility.

Cyprian of Carthage: "Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither [b]no errors can come[/b]" (Epistulae 59 (55), 14, [256 A.D.])

Cyprian of Carthage: "the Lord says to Peter; ’I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of Heaven; and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven’ [Matt 16:18-19])…On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were also what Peter was [i.e. apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built can he still be confident that he is in the Church? (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251])

Irenaeus of Lyons: "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]).

Pope Sixtus III "All know that to assent to [the Bishop of Rome’s] decision is to assent to St. Peter, who lives in his successors and whose faith fails not." (AD 433)


Theodoret of Cyr: "This most holy See has preserved the supremacy over all Churches on the earth, for one especial reason among many others; to wit, that it has remained intact from the defilement of heresy. No one has ever sat on that Chair, who has taught heretical doctrine; rather that See has ever preserved unstained the Apostolic grace." (Epistle 116 to Renatus [ A.D. 449]).


Hilary of Potiers: "Blessed Simon, who after his confession of the mystery was set to be the foundation-stone of the Church, and received the keys to the kingdom of heaven." (On the Trinity [ A.D. 315-367])


Origen: "Peter, upon whom is built the Church of Christ, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail, left only one epistle of acknowledged genuinity. Let us concede also a second, which however is doubtful." (Commentaries on John 5,3 [A.D. 226])

Tertulian: "…that the power of binding and loosing has thereby been handed on to you, that is to every church akin to Peter? What kind of man are you, subverting and changing what was the manifest intent of the Lord when He conferred this personally upon Peter? On you, He says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church; and whatever you shall have bound or you shall have loosed, not what they shall have bound or they shall have loosed. " (Modesty, qtd in Jurgens 387 [A.D. 220])

[KnightofChrist]

I guess I could have posted more... but you have problems with "data dumps"

[Anomaly]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1217915' date='Mar 23 2007, 08:05 PM']I guess I could have posted more... but you have problems with "data dumps"[/quote]
I always say, don't try to ride a lame horse past the slaughter house. (You should quit while you're ahead.)
I had copied your 'd d', and was replying to each one individually. I'm of a mindset you can eat an elephant, just one bit at a time. But gnawing on the bones is slow going.

Good post by Cyprian. I will think on that. It's a bit of a stretch to get Supremacy out of that since it points out that the other Apostles do have the same graces and authority as Peter, but Peter is the leader among them. We both know that Peter's authority is bound to the other's Apostles as well, and that is even more important for the subsequent Popes as they are bound to Tradition established by the previous Apostles. Supremacy (as opposed to Primacy) leads to a belief or understanding that the Supreme is bound to little or nothing. That is where Catholics have a problem with how a human Pope can act independently as a Supreme Authority without also being beholden to the Apostolic Tradition that resides with the other Bishops. The Authority of Peter's Chair is intertwined with all the Apostolic Tradition that resides with the Bishops. The seat of Peter is the focus of the Apostolic Tradition and is the exclusive source or there would be no other Bishops. Either the seat of Peter is a Bishop among Bishops, or not. Can the Pope speak infallibly outside the governance of Tradition? How can/does that happen?

Iraneous is referring to the Supremacy of the Church Traditions risiding in Apostolic Succession. Note he refers to what both Paul and Peter gave the Church, not just Peter as Supreme Individual.

Pope Sixtus, is refering to Apostolic Succession, not the office of Supreme Pointiff.

Theodoret is excellent support for you as it is an initial claim of the Chair of Peter being unable to teach heresy. I would really like to know more about the ecclesiastical operation of the Church at that time. Can/did the Bishop of Rome produce new Dogma on his own, or did the Bishop of Rome cause Councils to be formed, mediated them, and lead the Council to define Doctrine by working WITH the other Bishops as Primate, not Supreme Pontiff.

Hilary, Origen, and Tertulian all speak of Peter having the exclusive ability to bind and loose. But does that not deny that Authority in other Bishops? Are there not other Bishops with this Authority? But let's follow the logic. If Peter has this Authority, and comes to share this Authority with the others at Penetecost, when Jesus fulfills his promise, then how can this Authority work against itself, it's as if the Authority of Jesus is divided and can work against itself. Or is the Authority of Christ fully operative and fullfilled when it is weilded in agreement within itself in conjunction with ALL the Bishops? Does Bishop Andrew bind and then Bishop Bob loose, and then Bishop Carl bind the same thing again? After all, we're human.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1217964' date='Mar 23 2007, 08:01 PM']Good post by Cyprian. I will think on that. It's a bit of a stretch to get Supremacy out of that since it points out that the other Apostles do have the same graces and authority as Peter, but Peter is the leader among them.[/quote]

Cyprian points out from the start of the quote that only Peter has the keys of the kingdom of Heaven, the others have a "like-power" but not the same power. Similar but not the same power.


[quote name='Anomaly' post='1217964' date='Mar 23 2007, 08:01 PM']Theodoret is excellent support for you as it is an initial claim of the Chair of Peter being unable to teach heresy. I would really like to know more about the ecclesiastical operation of the Church at that time. Can/did the Bishop of Rome produce new Dogma on his own, or did the Bishop of Rome cause Councils to be formed, mediated them, and lead the Council to define Doctrine by working WITH the other Bishops as Primate, not Supreme Pontiff.[/quote]


Thank you, perhaps someone wiser than I can answer you question. But I would assume that The early Popes may have had help teaching doctrine, but the Pope was the final word on all matters, as was Peter, and every Pope I know.


[quote name='Anomaly' post='1217964' date='Mar 23 2007, 08:01 PM']Hilary, Origen, and Tertulian all speak of Peter having the exclusive ability to bind and loose. But does that not deny that Authority in other Bishops? Are there not other Bishops with this Authority? But let's follow the logic. If Peter has this Authority, and comes to share this Authority with the others at Penetecost, when Jesus fulfills his promise, then how can this Authority work against itself, it's as if the Authority of Jesus is divided and can work against itself. Or is the Authority of Christ fully operative and fullfilled when it is weilded in agreement within itself in conjunction with ALL the Bishops? Does Bishop Andrew bind and then Bishop Bob loose, and then Bishop Carl bind the same thing again? After all, we're human.[/quote]


The office of Peter alone has ability to bind and loose. No other office has been given the keys, not a Pentecost or anywhere. That being said, it is good of you to actually debate an issue than just to totally over look it as some others do.

Clement of Alexandria


"[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? ‘Behold, we have left all and have followed you’ [Matt. 19:27; Mark 10:28]" (Who Is the Rich Man That Is Saved? 21:3–5 [A.D. 200]).



Tertullian


"For though you think that heaven is still shut up, remember that the Lord left the keys of it to Peter here, and through him to the Church, which keys everyone will carry with him if he has been questioned and made a confession [of faith]" (Antidote Against the Scorpion 10 [A.D. 211]).

"[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church" (Modesty 21:9–10 [A.D. 220]).



The Letter of Clement to James


"Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect" (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221]).



Origen


"[I]f we were to attend carefully to the Gospels, we should also find, in relation to those things which seem to be common to Peter . . . a great difference and a preeminence in the things [Jesus] said to Peter, compared with the second class [of apostles]. For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more, and in order that whatsoever things he binds on earth may be bound not in one heaven but in them all, as compared with the many who bind on earth and loose on earth, so that these things are bound and loosed not in [all] the heavens, as in the case of Peter, but in one only; for they do not reach so high a stage with power as Peter to bind and loose in all the heavens" (Commentary on Matthew 13:31 [A.D. 248]).



Cyprian of Carthage


"The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ . . . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).



Cyril of Jerusalem


"The Lord is loving toward men, swift to pardon but slow to punish. Let no man despair of his own salvation. Peter, the first and foremost of the apostles, denied the Lord three times before a little servant girl, but he repented and wept bitterly" (Catechetical Lectures 2:19 [A.D. 350]).

"[Simon Magus] so deceived the city of Rome that Claudius erected a statue of him. . . . While the error was extending itself, Peter and Paul arrived, a noble pair and the rulers of the Church, and they set the error aright. . . . [T]hey launched the weapon of their like-mindedness in prayer against the Magus, and struck him down to earth. It was marvelous enough, and yet no marvel at all, for Peter was there—he that carries about the keys of heaven [Matt. 16:19]" (ibid., 6:14).

"In the power of the same Holy Spirit, Peter, both the chief of the apostles and the keeper of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, in the name of Christ healed Aeneas the paralytic at Lydda, which is now called Diospolis [Acts 9:32–34]" (ibid., 17:27).



Ephraim the Syrian


"[Jesus said:] Simon, my follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I betimes called you Peter, because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on Earth a Church for me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which my teaching flows; you are the chief of my disciples. Through you I will give drink to all peoples. Yours is that life-giving sweetness which I dispense. I have chosen you to be, as it were, the firstborn in my institution so that, as the heir, you may be executor of my treasures. I have given you the keys of my kingdom. Behold, I have given you authority over all my treasures" (Homilies 4:1 [A.D. 351]).

[url="http://www.catholic.com/library/Peter_Primacy.asp"]More...[/url]


[url="http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/rock.htm"]Even more[/url]

[dairygirl4u2c]

The Cyprian quote can mean simply that Rome is to be a source of unity, ideally, not necessarily infallibility. If these quotes mean what you say, then isn't it odd that Cyprian never submitted to Bishop Stephen even until the death of Stephen? He didn't get along with the bishop of rome until the next bishop came. Cyprian also said something to the effect that no should make themselves a "bishop of bishops". If he believed in unity by rome bishop, surely he didn't mean in that sense. What makes more sense is that he didn't think a bishop should be exerted final authority. (catholics of course mean that the infallible pope should confer to ther biships first, ideally, but this is just Cyprian and we don't have to listen to him if the pope doesn't want to.. a nice hop skip around what Cyprian actually thought, when he's a critical peice for their argument)

[dairygirl4u2c]

"For neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another." (The Seventh Council of Carthage Under Cyprian, The Judgment of Eighty-Seven Bishops on the Baptism of Heretics, 250 AD)

Cyprian says, "custom without truth is the antiquity of error".

[KnightofChrist]

It was asked that proof be given that the early church fathers supported the Infallibility/Supremacy/Primacy of the Bishop of Rome before the year 500AD. It was suggested that these quotes did not exist. I have attempted to show they do in fact exist. Now one could try a shoot holes in the church fathers support of the Infallibility/Supremacy/Primacy of the Pope, by focusing on a few of the early church fathers, but I believe over all the evidence shows that a majority of Church Fathers supported and taught the Bishop of Rome, the seat of Peter had Infallibility/Supremacy/Primacy.

In the end and to this day Pope Stephen I "won" the argument, the majority of the Bishops sided with Stephen not Cyprian.

Edited March 24, 2007 by KnightofChrist

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1218350' date='Mar 24 2007, 12:00 PM']"For neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another." (The Seventh Council of Carthage Under Cyprian, The Judgment of Eighty-Seven Bishops on the Baptism of Heretics, 250 AD)

Cyprian says, "custom without truth is the antiquity of error".[/quote]
That quote does not have to read as against Petrine Primacy. First, the pope is not "bishop of bishops." Second, the pope does not, in virtue of papal authority (though some may have claimed it) use tyrannical terror to compel others. Third, it is true that each bishop has authority over his own diocese. Fourth, it is true that the pope has the role of strengthening the brethren and thus can, without judging others, direct them in the way they should go. Fifth and last, the context of that passage (which I have not looked up) could simply be (and probably is, given the title) Cyprian addressing the bishops as a whole. If he was addressing the bishops as a whole and stating that they didn't have power over others, then you can't blame him for not nuancing something he may have believed, since he wouldn't have expected it to be coming under fire or have expected himself to be misinterpreted.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Raphael' post='1219104' date='Mar 25 2007, 01:35 AM']That quote does not have to read as against Petrine Primacy. First, the pope is not "bishop of bishops." Second, the pope does not, in virtue of papal authority (though some may have claimed it) use tyrannical terror to compel others. Third, it is true that each bishop has authority over his own diocese. Fourth, it is true that the pope has the role of strengthening the brethren and thus can, without judging others, direct them in the way they should go. Fifth and last, the context of that passage (which I have not looked up) could simply be (and probably is, given the title) Cyprian addressing the bishops as a whole. If he was addressing the bishops as a whole and stating that they didn't have power over others, then you can't blame him for not nuancing something he may have believed, since he wouldn't have expected it to be coming under fire or have expected himself to be misinterpreted.[/quote]First - Since when?
Second - Condeming people with anethema, excommunication, etc, isn't tyrannical terror. The man is a human with the powers to bind in heaven but is not impeccable. What????
Third - True. Keep that in mind.
Fourth - But is that how the majority of Popes have behaved? Be realistic.
Fifth and Last - Pure wishful speculation that maybe Cyprian didn't mean something that undermined your theory.

Sigh. I'm being forced to crack open my Catholic History books. The reality is, the idea of Papal Supremacy (not Primacy among the Bishops) was brought about for civil politics, not theological needs unless all the Bishops and Cardinals are always impeccable...

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]“With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set
sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and
to the principal Church, in which sacerdotal unity has its source; nor did they take
thought that these are Romans, whose faith was praised by the preaching Apostle,
and among whom it is not possible for perfidy to have entrance.”

v.

"Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come"

(Epistulae 59 (55), 14, [256 A.D.]).[/quote]

i noticed the second quote from karl keatings book.
beside it, i saw "rome has spoken, the case is closed". this quote is notoriously skewed from the original transaltion. i wonder if the first quote is as well.

the CC definitely has evidence, they just don't have definitive proof. if the orthodox can remain separate, it can't be that definiitve.
(it seems i have to refer overzeolous catholics to the orthodox a lot, cause their programmed response is suppose to be respect for them, and that's the programmed response they usually give)

[Guest]

good stuff knight of christ
interesting

[Apotheoun]

Whatever happened to Anomaly?

[dairygirl4u2c]

even more vague
"After such things as these, moreover, they still dare-a false bishop having been appointed for them by, heretics-to set sail and to bear letters from schismatic and profane persons to the throne of Peter, and to the chief church whence priestly unity takes its source;51 and not to consider that these were the Romans whose faith was praised in the preaching of the apostle, to whom faithlessness could have no access"