Catholics Have To Submit To The Pope No Matter How Wicked

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1219684' date='Mar 26 2007, 12:07 AM']YES. Going back to the Greatt Schism as a major malfunction that divided the Authority of the Bishops for geo-politcal reasons. Civil political agendas became more important than theological Faith objectives.[/quote]I would agree that there have been individuals who have used religion as a tool for their political agenda. Martin Luther and Henry VIII come to mind. Yet, the Catholic Church has always been pro-active in trying to build bridges to those who split from the Church. This is evident in documents such as the decrees of the Council of Trent.

Right now, I think it would be appropriate for you to "put your money where your mouth is" and educate me with a specific "made-made rule" that the Vatican invented which caused the Great Schism. Unfortunately, it is difficult for me to respond to your claim regarding the Great Schism, because you haven't provided any solid proof that can be addressed.

To be fair, if you would like to hold me to the same standard of accountability, I'd be happy to provide you with quotes (in Trent and elsewhere) to support my claim that the Catholic Church attempts to find unity and build bridges.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

Anomaly, I have no reason to fear discussion of these matters, but perhaps it would be best if you would tell us why you left the Church.

God bless,

Micah

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' post='1219755' date='Mar 26 2007, 02:59 AM']I would agree that there have been individuals who have used religion as a tool for their political agenda. Martin Luther and Henry VIII come to mind. Yet, the Catholic Church has always been pro-active in trying to build bridges to those who split from the Church. This is evident in documents such as the decrees of the Council of Trent.

Right now, I think it would be appropriate for you to "put your money where your mouth is" and educate me with a specific "made-made rule" that the Vatican invented which caused the Great Schism. Unfortunately, it is difficult for me to respond to your claim regarding the Great Schism, because you haven't provided any solid proof that can be addressed.

To be fair, if you would like to hold me to the same standard of accountability, I'd be happy to provide you with quotes (in Trent and elsewhere) to support my claim that the Catholic Church attempts to find unity and build bridges.[/quote]The money is the arguments the Eastern Church has for the Schism.
Did the Filoque HAVE to be answered without waiting until a council representative of the ENTIRE Church could be re-assembled?
Did not the Roman Church seek political power and manipulate the timing and manner of the answer?
Did not the Eastern Church also resent loss of political power and manipulate their participation?
You cannot deny that geo-political motives are and were deeply involved in how the Bishops of the then unitied Catholic Church behaved and motivated them, leading to the schism. To make this argument I have to re-type a history book?

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1219855' date='Mar 26 2007, 10:15 AM']The money is the arguments the Eastern Church has for the Schism.
Did the Filoque HAVE to be answered without waiting until a council representative of the ENTIRE Church could be re-assembled?
Did not the Roman Church seek political power and manipulate the timing and manner of the answer?
Did not the Eastern Church also resent loss of political power and manipulate their participation?
You cannot deny that geo-political motives are and were deeply involved in how the Bishops of the then unitied Catholic Church behaved and motivated them, leading to the schism. To make this argument I have to re-type a history book?[/quote]I don't want a book. If you could just quote a specific Church document related to the Schism, which would support your argument that "the money made them do it." I just want one documentable "man-made rule."

Regarding the Filioque, are you saying that the "Filioque" was a political tool of the Vatican so that they could accomplish their goal of splitting Christianity into two? I'm afraid I don't buy that argument. For example, the Maronites (Eastern Christians in union with the Pope) didn't even add the Filioque to the Nicene Creed until Trent (~5 centuries after the Great Schism), so it's really hard to say that the "Filioque" caused the Schism.

A more reasonable argument is the possibility that Muslim overlords were the ones who encouraged Eastern Christians to separate from the Pope. It certainly was in their interest to weaken Christian unity. In contrast, I have difficulty finding a single reason why Christianity would benefit from disunity.

[RezaMikhaeil]

Who are you referring to with "eastern church", Eastern Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox? As oriental means "eastern" but those are two different eastern rites. Just so you know also, the Oriental Orthodox didn't schism, but were removed without even being present based upon hersay [which later found that they were misunderstood].

Reza

[thessalonian]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1219441' date='Mar 25 2007, 04:38 PM']... to answer your question, no I dont think that the Apostles were infallible.

Reza[/quote]

So the scriptures have errors in them. They were not infallible at times? We don't claim the Pope is always infallible. Only at limited times when he is speaking on matters of faith and morals for the whole Church.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' post='1219892' date='Mar 26 2007, 03:04 PM']I don't want a book. If you could just quote a specific Church document related to the Schism, which would support your argument that "the money made them do it." I just want one documentable "man-made rule."

Regarding the Filioque, are you saying that the "Filioque" was a political tool of the Vatican so that they could accomplish their goal of splitting Christianity into two? I'm afraid I don't buy that argument. For example, the Maronites (Eastern Christians in union with the Pope) didn't even add the Filioque to the Nicene Creed until Trent (~5 centuries after the Great Schism), so it's really hard to say that the "Filioque" caused the Schism.

A more reasonable argument is the possibility that Muslim overlords were the ones who encouraged Eastern Christians to separate from the Pope. It certainly was in their interest to weaken Christian unity. In contrast, I have difficulty finding a single reason why Christianity would benefit from disunity.[/quote]
Of course Christianity didn't benefit from disunity. That's the point. The schism occured because Church leaders were too concerned about Byzantine vs Roman political influence and were orchastrating Church power for political advantage. The Latin Church forced the Filoque issue to a conclusion to prove and demonstrate it's supremacy over the patriarchs. Neither side is innocent or pure of motive throughout the history of the breaks and schisms. Regional politics were a higher priority than theological goals of keeping the Church united. Splintered does not mean destroyed.

And please stop purposely misinterpreting what I write. My 'money' comment referred to your challenge to put my money where my mouth was, not that it was about money. Sheesh.

[mariahLVzJP2]

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' post='1219755' date='Mar 26 2007, 01:59 AM']Right now, I think it would be appropriate for you to "put your money where your mouth is" and educate me with a specific "made-made rule" that the Vatican invented which caused the Great Schism. Unfortunately, it is difficult for me to respond to your claim regarding the Great Schism, because you haven't provided any solid proof that can be addressed.[/quote]
yes, it would be great to see some sort of Church document refering to that "man-made rule."

Anomaly, i hope this strikes a chord:

"The Catholic Church is not a church reserved exclusively for latter-day saints. Nor is it a church that expects its ministers to be without fault. A universal church must expect trouble from universal sins. Catholics are not an elect, immune from temptation, but strivers after God who inevitably stumble and need forgiveness."

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1220670' date='Mar 27 2007, 06:30 PM']Of course Christianity didn't benefit from disunity. That's the point. The schism occured because Church leaders were too concerned about Byzantine vs Roman political influence and were orchastrating Church power for political advantage. The Latin Church forced the Filoque issue to a conclusion to prove and demonstrate it's supremacy over the patriarchs. Neither side is innocent or pure of motive throughout the history of the breaks and schisms. Regional politics were a higher priority than theological goals of keeping the Church united. Splintered does not mean destroyed.

And please stop purposely misinterpreting what I write. My 'money' comment referred to your challenge to put my money where my mouth was, not that it was about money. Sheesh.[/quote]Anomaly, you believe you can read my motivations when you claim that I "purposely misinterpreted" what you wrote. I did not purposely misinterpret it. I grouped the desire for political power with the desire for monetary power (which isn't such a stretch, is it?). Sometimes, misinterpretations happen by themselves, without an ulterior motive.

As for your claim of politically-motivated theology, I still think the facts on the ground contradict what you conclude regarding the Fil[u]i[/u]oque. One incontovertable fact is that some of the uniate Eastern Churches never added the Filioque to the Nicene Creed. Another fact: the theological origins of the Filioque goes back to the 5th century ([url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filioque#Historical_origins"]link[/url]), ~600 years before the Schism. As the link mentions, theologians all the way back to St. Augustine (specifically in his work "De Trinitate"), taught that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. As St. Augustine argues (forgive my paraphrase), one problem with a rejection of the filioque is that it appears to make the Holy Spirit a "second Son" of the Father.

Another fact is that Papal primacy didn't just appear in 1054 AD. If anyone needed to "prove" anything regarding authority, it was not the See of Rome.

Edited March 27, 2007 by Mateo el Feo

[Anomaly]

[quote name='mariahLVzJP2' post='1220715' date='Mar 27 2007, 07:15 PM']yes, it would be great to see some sort of Church document refering to that "man-made rule."

Anomaly, i hope this strikes a chord:

"The Catholic Church is not a church reserved exclusively for latter-day saints. Nor is it a church that expects its ministers to be without fault. A universal church must expect trouble from universal sins. Catholics are not an elect, immune from temptation, but strivers after God who inevitably stumble and need forgiveness."[/quote]
chuckle.
It does strike a chord because I agree with it and which is why I reject Papal Infallibility combined with Papal Supremacy which for Roman Catholics, the Pope can and does operate independent of the Church Traditions which can only be effectively brought to bear in a REAL ecumencial Council, not just a few select Rites. The man-made rule would be declaring Papal Infallibility in the 1400's to justify the Latin side of the Great Schism and was the eventual fruit of regarding the Pope as a Supreme Temporal Ruler. Jesus chose a group of Apostles with Peter the Head. Sadly, human pursuit of power splinted the Apostolic Successors who were more concerned with the power over their Diocese and Patriarchs and less concerned about serving Christianity.

The Pope cannot create and define matters of Faith independently. He is beholden to the review and fiddler of Tradition that is shared and embodied in the Bishops and Patriarchs. That is operating within his Office. Not to create new Doctrine for political purposes. Petty politics bound Bishops and Patriarchs to allegiance to their respective rulers, emperors, czars and ceasers and replaced their allegience to the Church.

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1220726' date='Mar 27 2007, 07:45 PM']The man-made rule would be declaring Papal Infallibility in the 1400's to justify the Latin side of the Great Schism and was the eventual fruit of regarding the Pope as a Supreme Temporal Ruler.[/quote]I'm kinda confused. Papal Infallibility was dogmatically defined in 1870, at the First Vatican Council.

Even if something happened in 1400s, how could that be to blame for the East-West Schism, which occured 400 years earlier?

[Aloysius]

infallibility is an organic charism often abused by apologists in their attempt to show the unity of the Church thus opening up this idea "well, why don't we have a list?"

God doesn't let the Pope bind the Church in doctrinal error. And that is all any Catholic needs to know to understand how to unite himself with the Church. the precise theological definitions and debates through the century which produce some nuances and near contradictions are something which can be looked at in retrospect and said "God did not allow the Church to be bound in error; what the pope bound on the Church in the past was not erroneous; what the pope is now binding on the Churchis not erroneous"; and that paradigm clearly works on everything that the popes have ever bound the Church on doctrinally.

the Pope always had this direct unquestionable authority; its unquestionability by universal consensus indicates an objective belief that it was not erroneous (for if one believed it was false, or could be false, one question it). Roma Locutus Est, Causa Finita Est was the idea; when Rome speaks on something there is no more question. there is a clear historical implicit presumption that Rome is never wrong when she settles an issue.

the proper status of the Roman Pontiff is to be a final arbitrer; he is only infallible in the sense that he cannot make the whole Church (all sui juris churches included) believe an error,.

now, Anomaly, in your view that the Schism actually caused the True Church to be divided (I do not believe this, I believe the True Church has always remained united and that the East schismed away from the True Church), then you would say that anything the pope has ever said after 1054 could have been erroneous because he was no longer binding the whole church. but I would caution you not to take that ecclesiology into an understanding that I have no historical uncertainty that folks like Augustine would've totally rejected: one that permits Rome's final arbitration of disagreements to be questioned as possibly erroneous. No, the proper biblical ecclesiology sees the Chair of Peter as incapable of binding the entire Church in error.

now I could see a very elegant position in saying that the Roman Pontiffs since 1054 have been unable to bind the [i]whole[/i] Church in anything but that, if they could succeed at binding the [i]whole[/i] Church in a belief, then that belief would be unquestionably the true Christian Truth and thus there would be a presumption that it is infallible (for if it is unquestionable, it is presumed that it is not untrue)

Of course, Catholics believe that the unity of the Church was never totally breached, and thus what the Pope says has continued to bind the whole Church.

of course, coming to reflect on the wording I just used, it brings up another issue: must the Pope's binding of the whole Church succeed in binding the whole Church for it to be successful? In the elegant position I have conjured up, it would have to succeed in binding the whole Church before it could be successful.

In my own position, however, I think I could agree (burn me if I'm being heretical) that if the Pope was incapable of binding the whole Church in a point of doctrine, he would no longer have that charism. I mean by this not that, if everyone in the Church rejects it then the pope is not infallible, that would be inconsistent with the constant acceptance of Rome's final arbitration as unquestionable; I mean rather, that the pope has to have the capacity to make something binding on the whole Church. He used to be empowered to do so by his political power; he is now empowered to do so by an irreformable decision of the First Ecumenical Council. But if there was no way for him to bind the whole Church (say he lived on a deserted island, OR the whole Church never needed an answer from him but rather was united in belief without his input, OR there was just no mechanism by which he could reach the whole Church).

Of course, in this other position that I gently suggest to you as stronger and more consistent with the history of Ecclesiology, the idea would be that the mechanism by which the Roman Pontiff could arbitrate and bind the whole Church was damaged and because of that, he is no longer able to bind the whole Church but just the largest part of the Church. Then the argument would be whether the Catholic Church is synonymous with the whole Church and all other schismatic groups are only parts of the Church insomuch as they unite themselves to the Catholic Church; or whether there is indeed a substantial divide between two parts of Christ's true Church.

haha... you've heard of straw man? I think people should name the type of thing I'm doing as "iron man" haha... I'm trying to argue against a position which is stronger than the position you actually hold.

[Aloysius]

Mateo, I would argue that he is indeed correct to say that infallibilty contributed to the schism of 1054. Because there was an implicit presumed doctrine of infallibility in the Church; if there was not, people would have constantly been questioning whether the Roman Pontiff's declarations and arbitrations were true. They were not questioned within the communion of the Church; they were considered binding, unquestionable, and thus infallible.

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1220740' date='Mar 27 2007, 08:22 PM']Mateo, I would argue that he is indeed correct to say that infallibilty contributed to the schism of 1054. Because there was an implicit presumed doctrine of infallibility in the Church; if there was not, people would have constantly been questioning whether the Roman Pontiff's declarations and arbitrations were true. They were not questioned within the communion of the Church; they were considered binding, unquestionable, and thus infallible.[/quote]Fair enough. My point is that the papal infallibility wasn't just a "power play" that the Latin Church used for political gain.

In the hopes of clarifying my logic, let me use a parallel. We could argue that the First Council of Nicaea contributed to a schism (i.e. split) with Arians. But the declarations of Nicaea were not mere political weapons used to demonstrate the Church's supremacy over the Arians. Or would someone suggest that St. Athanasius [i]et al[/i] were just power-hungry?

I hope that helps explain where I'm coming from.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='thessalonian' post='1220385' date='Mar 27 2007, 06:46 AM']So the scriptures have errors in them. They were not infallible at times? We don't claim the Pope is always infallible. Only at limited times when he is speaking on matters of faith and morals for the whole Church.[/quote] So he's fallible sometimes and other times infallible? That's just like those that attempt to seperate Jesus's divine and human nature, it's not two natures, it's but one nature... and the same goes for human beings, either we're infallible at every moment or we're not.

In regards to your comment about the sciptures, I dont doubt them but I doubt one's interpretation of them.

Reza