Catholics Have To Submit To The Pope No Matter How Wicked

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1220768' date='Mar 27 2007, 09:27 PM']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...[/quote]So the Monophysites were right and Christianity has been wrong since the Council of Chalcedon in 451?

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' post='1220772' date='Mar 27 2007, 06:34 PM']So the Monophysites were right and Christianity has been wrong since the Council of Chalcedon in 451?[/quote]

I don't support the council of Chalcedon but its important that there was great confusion at the Council of Chalcedon. That council referred to the Coptic Church as "Monophysites" but Monophysites are [and were long before Chalcedon] rebuked by Copts. Miaphysitism is what the Copts [and all Oriental Orthodox] embrace, the Council of Chalcedon got it wrong because they were basing their information about the Coptic Church upon hersay, not fact but you're also misinterpreting the council. The Council of Chalcedon didn't conclude that Jesus had two natures [divine and human] that were completely seperated but concluded that Jesus had a human nature and a divine nature that were two natures but never seperated but never mingled, to say that Christ's human nature and divine nature were completely seperated is to say that Jesus didn't have divine nature while here on earth and therefore wasn't God.

Oriental Orthodox conclude that Jesus Christ was fully divine and full human while on earth, that those natures were never mingled but since they were also never seperated, as Christ was fully human and fully God while on earth [his human and divine nature was never seperated], Jesus Christ was fully human and fully God as a single being, that his divine and human nature are but one nature, and should be referred to as one nature, not two as Chalcedon has chosen to define them.

Note: The Coptic Church wasn't present and wasn't represented at Chalcedon, so it can't be considered a valid council. It was a political move on the part of a partciular patriarch [who I'd like not to name but if you do research you can find out] out of jealousy, to through military action, keep the Coptic Orthodox Bishops from attending the council, in order to validate their proper position. As I'd mentioned that the "Oriental Orthodox Theology" [thou it wasn't] that was presented at Chalcedon, wasn't the truth and was hersay, therefore their position wasn't properly articulated and judged in a fair light.

Reza

[mariahLVzJP2]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1220726' date='Mar 27 2007, 06:45 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. Jesus chose a group of Apostles with Peter the Head.[/quote]
i said a document.

[Mateo el Feo]

Hi Reza, just curious: are you Coptic Orthodox?

----

The problem with the path that non-Catholics are taking on this thread is: pretty soon, every Council is painted as a political move or a misunderstanding that can't be considered valid or authoritative because "everybody wasn't there." For me this begs the question, "How many bishops/patriarchs need to be present for a statement to be considered authoritative?" According to the numbers, ~300 out of the total 1800 Christian bishops attended the Council of Nicaea. Does that make the Council of Nicaea 17% authoritative?

How can you solve the problem of Nicaea, where Arian bishops rejected what was taught? Or the Nestorian bishops and the Council of Ephesus? Were these Councils invalid because the voices of the Arians and Nestorians weren't represented? It becomes a slipperly slope, where the Church ends up having no authority to asserting anything unless there is total consensus.

In summary, anyone who disagrees with the Church is going to find some way to defend their position and attack the authority of the Church. This has been going on for 2,000 years.

[Aloysius]

Reza:

the papal office is considered infallible; not the person of the pope. it is said to be a negative charism; properly understood by the definitions of the first Vatican Council (as well as the way it has implicitly been accepted in the western Church and, arguably in the beginning, by all Churches) as God making it impossible for the pope to bind the Church in error. ie, the pope could not, even if he wanted to, bind the church to believe something erroneous. he can believe in error; but in this instance we believe God would do what He never does and IMPEDE on his free will; for in the post-Christ world where God is so active in making sure there is universal access to His incarnational Revelation, God considers it a greater evil for His Church to be bound in error than it is for Him to take away one man's free will.

How does this work practically? Most Catholics would point to the examples of sinful popes who were so distracted by their sins that they never tried to bind the Church in believing error. Any one of those popes with mistresses and illegitimate children could have easily (in purely human terms) said "The Church must believe that having many mistresses is morally permissable"... however, he never did anything like that. he was too distracted by personal ambitions and person passions; I believe the Divine Hand forbade Him from spreading his immoralities into an actual binding teaching on the Church by allowing him to be blinded by alterior motives. or more modernly: who knows what Pope John Paul I's plans were for his papacy? no one really... now I have no idea and he seems like he was a well-enough orthodox man; but in our understanding of infallibility it would be entirely possible that John Paul I intended to come up and say "By virtue of my office of universal pastor, I define that Christ was a squirrel" or some other ridiculous heresy (lol I'm sorry for making it really ridiculous, no legitimate heresy came to mind). I do believe it is said that John XXIII personally held certain heretical notions about the final judgement which inexplicably never made it into his teachings that bound the Church.

Joseph Ratzinger is not infallible in his nature, his ordination as pope did not affect his soul substantially in that way (it marked his soul, as all sacraments do, in the same way any soul is marked by Holy Orders); he is incapable of binding the Church in error. God would sooner directly intervene and strike him dead. I truly believe that if some pope somehow made it up to the balcony preparing to define an erroneous doctrine on the Church, we would see lightning. And in my analysis of the history of the papacy, personal errors of the popes never actually make it even that far into their teaching office.

But that is an important thing to understand: the Office of the Papacy excercises a negative charism of infallibility by which the man holding the office is incapable of binding the whole Church in error. nothing more or less.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' post='1220822' date='Mar 27 2007, 07:48 PM']Hi Reza, just curious: are you Coptic Orthodox?

[b]I'm Coptic, yes[/b]

----

The problem with the path that non-Catholics are taking on this thread is: pretty soon, every Council is painted as a political move or a misunderstanding that can't be considered valid or authoritative because "everybody wasn't there."

[b]It's slightly more complicated then that. As you may know [by church history] there are four original rites [Roman, Syriac, Coptic, Greek]. During the council of Nicea everyone of those rites [that makes up the church] was present, so the church universally agreed on that which was affirmed. During Chalcedon the Coptic [and Syriac] were kept by force from attending and the council was clearly wrong [as has been proven] because of getting their information through hersay and proclaiming that Copts [and Syriacs] were Monophysites [in which was never the case]. The council wasn't guided by God because God doesn't get things wrong as such, and doesn't keep in such error, even after being proven to be wrong. A council doesn't work as such, where those with a particular agenda, remove everyone that doesn't agree with their agenda.[/b]

For me this begs the question, "How many bishops/patriarchs need to be present for a statement to be considered authoritative?" According to the numbers, ~300 out of the total 1800 Christian bishops attended the Council of Nicaea. Does that make the Council of Nicaea 17% authoritative?

[b]Nicea was authoritative because there was a universal consensis regarding that affirmed at the council. Everyone of the Rites agreed upon that which was affirmed, and the truth became known. It's important to note that originally Arius was the most popular and St. Athanasius was the underdog. St. Athanasius was even approached once and told "Athanasius, the whole world is against you" and his response was "then I'm against the whole world" but then of course God spoke [with Arius' horrible death] and made the truth known. There were bishops that weren't present but everyone of the church authorities were present from every rite in the church[/b]

How can you solve the problem of Nicaea, where Arian bishops rejected what was taught? Or the Nestorian bishops and the Council of Ephesus? Were these Councils invalid because the voices of the Arians and Nestorians weren't represented? It becomes a slipperly slope, where the Church ends up having no authority to asserting anything unless there is total consensus.

[b]Nicea doesn't need to be solved because everyone of the rites were present and agreed. I'm glad that you mentioned Arians, because Arians were given their opportunity to testify before the council, but God himself kept Arius from speaking [in his death]. It's also important to note that the council fully understood Arius' position but also found it to be heretical, whereas with the Copts [and Syriacs] the council of Chalcedon did not fully understand the position of Copts [and Syriacs]. I'm glad that you mentioned Nestorians, because it was St. Cyril [of Alexandria] that fought him and was victorious, just to have the council of Chalcedon dishonor him. Jesus Christ has called his children to live in spirit and in truth. The council of Chalcedon didn't have truth, as it proclaimed that Copts were Monophysites. Copts have taken a stand against Monophysitism since before Chalcedon, but Chalcedon went on hersay and said that Copts were monophysites and therefore heretical, but in actuality Copts are not monophysites but miaphysites.[/b]

In summary, anyone who disagrees with the Church is going to find some way to defend their position and attack the authority of the Church. This has been going on for 2,000 years.

[b]In the situation of Copts, we are of the original church and were wrongfully labeled as Monophysites instead of Miaphysites and weren't given the opportunity to present the truth. We were kept from attending Chalcedon because of politics, dirty - nasty politics, nothing more. That asserted about Copts at Chalcedon was hersay, nothing more and should be treated as such.[/b][/quote]

Aloysius: If Popes are infallible [to the extent that you'd mentioned] then why did Pope John Paul II appologize to the Copts for the crusades and return some of our most sacred relics of Saints? Those individuals involved in the crusades did so in God's name. They'd gathered their army in God's name and told them to attack Copts in God's name, only to have Pope John Paul II appologize on the Roman Church's behalf. Why has it taken this long? Those other Popes affirmed in God's name that their actions were correct and justified, yet His Holiness Pope John Paul II affirmed [the second that he'd chosen to appologize] that those Popes were wrong and made a fallible decision, though they'd did so in the name of God, and had gotten the church to go along with it.

Reza

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' post='1220822' date='Mar 27 2007, 07:48 PM']Hi Reza, just curious: are you Coptic Orthodox?

[b]I'm Coptic, yes[/b]

----

The problem with the path that non-Catholics are taking on this thread is: pretty soon, every Council is painted as a political move or a misunderstanding that can't be considered valid or authoritative because "everybody wasn't there."

[b]It's slightly more complicated then that. As you may know [by church history] there are four original rites [Roman, Syriac, Coptic, Greek]. During the council of Nicea everyone of those rites [that makes up the church] was present, so the church universally agreed on that which was affirmed. During Chalcedon the Coptic [and Syriac] were kept by force from attending and the council was clearly wrong [as has been proven] because of getting their information through hersay and proclaiming that Copts [and Syriacs] were Monophysites [in which was never the case]. The council wasn't guided by God because God doesn't get things wrong as such, and doesn't keep in such error, even after being proven to be wrong. A council doesn't work as such, where those with a particular agenda, remove everyone that doesn't agree with their agenda.[/b]

For me this begs the question, "How many bishops/patriarchs need to be present for a statement to be considered authoritative?" According to the numbers, ~300 out of the total 1800 Christian bishops attended the Council of Nicaea. Does that make the Council of Nicaea 17% authoritative?

[b]Nicea was authoritative because there was a universal consensis regarding that affirmed at the council. Everyone of the Rites agreed upon that which was affirmed, and the truth became known. It's important to note that originally Arius was the most popular and St. Athanasius was the underdog. St. Athanasius was even approached once and told "Athanasius, the whole world is against you" and his response was "then I'm against the whole world" but then of course God spoke [with Arius' horrible death] and made the truth known. There were bishops that weren't present but everyone of the church authorities were present from every rite in the church[/b]

How can you solve the problem of Nicaea, where Arian bishops rejected what was taught? Or the Nestorian bishops and the Council of Ephesus? Were these Councils invalid because the voices of the Arians and Nestorians weren't represented? It becomes a slipperly slope, where the Church ends up having no authority to asserting anything unless there is total consensus.

[b]Nicea doesn't need to be solved because everyone of the rites were present and agreed. I'm glad that you mentioned Arians, because Arians were given their opportunity to testify before the council, but God himself kept Arius from speaking [in his death]. It's also important to note that the council fully understood Arius' position but also found it to be heretical, whereas with the Copts [and Syriacs] the council of Chalcedon did not fully understand the position of Copts [and Syriacs]. I'm glad that you mentioned Nestorians, because it was St. Cyril [of Alexandria] that fought him and was victorious, just to have the council of Chalcedon dishonor him. Jesus Christ has called his children to live in spirit and in truth. The council of Chalcedon didn't have truth, as it proclaimed that Copts were Monophysites. Copts have taken a stand against Monophysitism since before Chalcedon, but Chalcedon went on hersay and said that Copts were monophysites and therefore heretical, but in actuality Copts are not monophysites but miaphysites.[/b]

In summary, anyone who disagrees with the Church is going to find some way to defend their position and attack the authority of the Church. This has been going on for 2,000 years.

[b]In the situation of Copts, we are of the original church and were wrongfully labeled as Monophysites instead of Miaphysites and weren't given the opportunity to present the truth. We were kept from attending Chalcedon because of politics, dirty - nasty politics, nothing more. That asserted about Copts at Chalcedon was hersay, nothing more and should be treated as such.[/b][/quote]

Aloysius: If Popes are infallible [to the extent that you'd mentioned] then why did Pope John Paul II appologize to the Copts for the crusades and return some of our most sacred relics of Saints? Those individuals involved in the crusades did so in God's name. They'd gathered their army in God's name and told them to attack Copts in God's name, only to have Pope John Paul II appologize on the Roman Church's behalf. Why has it taken this long? Those other Popes affirmed in God's name that their actions were correct and justified, yet His Holiness Pope John Paul II affirmed [the second that he'd chosen to appologize] that those Popes were wrong and made a fallible decision, though they'd did so in the name of God, and had gotten the church to go along with it.

Reza

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1221056' date='Mar 28 2007, 04:44 AM']Aloysius: If Popes are infallible [to the extent that you'd mentioned] then why did Pope John Paul II appologize to the Copts for the crusades and return some of our most sacred relics of Saints? Those individuals involved in the crusades did so in God's name. They'd gathered their army in God's name and told them to attack Copts in God's name, only to have Pope John Paul II appologize on the Roman Church's behalf. Why has it taken this long? Those other Popes affirmed in God's name that their actions were correct and justified, yet His Holiness Pope John Paul II affirmed [the second that he'd chosen to appologize] that those Popes were wrong and made a fallible decision, though they'd did so in the name of God, and had gotten the church to go along with it.

Reza[/quote]
I'm not Aloysius, but the answer is that the pope is only infallible when dogmatically defining a matter of faith or morals from his official authority (ex cathedra). Calling a crusade does not fall under solemn definition of Church teaching.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1221046' date='Mar 28 2007, 05:12 AM']Reza:

the papal office is considered infallible; not the person of the pope. it is said to be a negative charism; properly understood by the definitions of the first Vatican Council (as well as the way it has implicitly been accepted in the western Church and, arguably in the beginning, by all Churches) as God making it impossible for the pope to bind the Church in error. ie, the pope could not, even if he wanted to, bind the church to believe something erroneous. he can believe in error; but in this instance we believe God would do what He never does and IMPEDE on his free will; for in the post-Christ world where God is so active in making sure there is universal access to His incarnational Revelation, God considers it a greater evil for His Church to be bound in error than it is for Him to take away one man's free will.

How does this work practically? Most Catholics would point to the examples of sinful popes who were so distracted by their sins that they never tried to bind the Church in believing error. Any one of those popes with mistresses and illegitimate children could have easily (in purely human terms) said "The Church must believe that having many mistresses is morally permissable"... however, he never did anything like that. he was too distracted by personal ambitions and person passions; I believe the Divine Hand forbade Him from spreading his immoralities into an actual binding teaching on the Church by allowing him to be blinded by alterior motives. or more modernly: who knows what Pope John Paul I's plans were for his papacy? no one really... now I have no idea and he seems like he was a well-enough orthodox man; but in our understanding of infallibility it would be entirely possible that John Paul I intended to come up and say "By virtue of my office of universal pastor, I define that Christ was a squirrel" or some other ridiculous heresy (lol I'm sorry for making it really ridiculous, no legitimate heresy came to mind). I do believe it is said that John XXIII personally held certain heretical notions about the final judgement which inexplicably never made it into his teachings that bound the Church.

Joseph Ratzinger is not infallible in his nature, his ordination as pope did not affect his soul substantially in that way (it marked his soul, as all sacraments do, in the same way any soul is marked by Holy Orders); he is incapable of binding the Church in error. God would sooner directly intervene and strike him dead. I truly believe that if some pope somehow made it up to the balcony preparing to define an erroneous doctrine on the Church, we would see lightning. And in my analysis of the history of the papacy, personal errors of the popes never actually make it even that far into their teaching office.

But that is an important thing to understand: the Office of the Papacy excercises a negative charism of infallibility by which the man holding the office is incapable of binding the whole Church in error. nothing more or less.[/quote]Al, I like your post, but most Catholics do not think it through to this extent. Most Catholics give the Pope way too much credit that he is 'right' and there-in is the problem in practical application. Let's look at a quick example.

Is the Sylabus of Errors infallible or not?

[thessalonian]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1220768' date='Mar 27 2007, 08:27 PM']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[/quote]


Apparently your miss the point of the question. Did the Bible fall out of the sky or did some men write it. When these men were writing scriptures did they have some cognative understanding of what they were writing or were they in a trance and their hand was moving? Did they understand what they wrote or did they write one thing, having an errant understanding of what they wrote in their minds? When the words were spoken by the likes of Isaiha were they the word of God and did he infallibly state them? This last question kind of puts a crimp in your two nature arguement in my view.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

Reza, I just want to add that the teaching is not that the person who is the pope is fallible at some times and infallible at others. The papacy is an office. When the pope is exercising that office, he is infallible.

Look at it this way (if I am incorrect in my understanding, I submit to the guidance of the Magisterium):

Josef Ratzinger (not to leave out the dignity of his priesthood, but I'm referencing his personhood) can make all the inaccurate statements he wants. However, when he is acting in this infallible role of the Successor of Peter, he brings life to that office. As such, he acts through that office. A statement is an act. If he makes a statement, then, it has an aspect of mind, will, and body, because every act has these three things. So in order for him to be infallible, he has to be exercising the office of the Successor of Peter. That means that in all three aspects, mind, will, and body, he has to be acting as Successor of Peter. So, consequently, we see that in order to make an infallible statement, he has to be speaking from his office (ex cathedra) as pope (the bodily aspect, because his office informs his act and is incorporated in the speech); he also has to be speaking on a matter of faith or morals (the mental aspect, because knowledge of faith or morals, although not necessarily acting in accord with faith and morals, is the competency of knowledge of the Petrine office); he also has to be speaking with the intention to define dogmatically some aspect of faith or morals (the volitive aspect, because it deals with what he wills to do). As such, there have only been two occasions where the pope has spoken from his office on a matter of faith or morals with the intention to define something dogmatically. So it's not that the pope is fallible at some times and infallible at others, but rather it's when the pope, in his office as pope, wishes to use this particular faculty or not. Those occasions on which the pope would not be using this faculty are as follows, in accord with the rules above: either when he is speaking as a private person and not in his capacity as pope, for instance, when he simply means to state that his steak sauce could be a little spicier or he wishes to express a private theological opinion; or when he speaks on a matter where he has no competency, for instance, if he tried to declare that there were actually three planets in the solar system; or when he speaks without the will to make a dogmatic definition, for instance, when he says that priests shall be celibate, which is not dogma, but only discipline. So it is a function of the role he fulfills, not an ability which flows from his personal being. As such, it is only when his person is fully involved in that role (the three conditions being met) that he is infallible.

God bless,

Micah

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote]Apparently your miss the point of the question. Did the Bible fall out of the sky or did some men write it. When these men were writing scriptures did they have some cognative understanding of what they were writing or were they in a trance and their hand was moving? Did they understand what they wrote or did they write one thing, having an errant understanding of what they wrote in their minds? When the words were spoken by the likes of Isaiha were they the word of God and did he infallibly state them? This last question kind of puts a crimp in your two nature arguement in my view.[/quote]

I never said that the bible "feel out of the sky" but if you're saying that those gospel writers are/were "infallible" during doctrinal moments, then you also have to assume that not just St. Peter was infallible but everyone else that wrote in the Bible. Catholics believe that the Pope is "Infalllible" based upon apostolic succession of St. Peter, the Coptic Church was founded by St. Mark and therefore according to your theology of Apostolic succession, the successor[s] of the See of St. Mark are also infallible, so according to your theology, His Holiness Pope Shenounda III and the apostolic successors of the other Apostles are also infallible, not just the Roman successor of St. Peter [as the Syriac Orthodox Church is also a direct apostolic successor of St. Peter]

Reza

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1221279' date='Mar 28 2007, 02:47 PM']I never said that the bible "feel out of the sky" but if you're saying that those gospel writers are/were "infallible" during doctrinal moments, then you also have to assume that not just St. Peter was infallible but everyone else that wrote in the Bible. Catholics believe that the Pope is "Infalllible" based upon apostolic succession of St. Peter, the Coptic Church was founded by St. Mark and therefore according to your theology of Apostolic succession, the successor[s] of the See of St. Mark are also infallible, so according to your theology, His Holiness Pope Shenounda III and the apostolic successors of the other Apostles are also infallible, not just the Roman successor of St. Peter [as the Syriac Orthodox Church is also a direct apostolic successor of St. Peter]

Reza[/quote]
Actually, and this is only my understanding, but the other apostles weren't infallible in the sense that St. Peter was. They weren't infallible in their teachings; they just had the Holy Spirit guiding their writings (at least the inspired ones), so the infallibility does not inhere in their offices. The reason we see that St. Peter is infallible is because Councils are infallible, and each Council's decision must be ratified by St. Peter to be so. Therefore, the infallibility comes only when the Councils are in union with the Successor of Peter, meaning that the infallibility hinges on his office. Now, over time, that came to be understood as to say that St. Peter's office itself has infallibility, and that is true, because even if all the other bishops were to fall away from the faith and hold a council and declare something that wasn't true, the pope would still be correct when he defined against their definition. So it comes down to him, whether the other bishops agree or not, although hopefully they do (and the majority always have...those who have not usually believe that it's the wrong time for a definition, not that the definition itself is incorrect).

[Budge]

Oh come on...

Peter was REBUKED by Paul even. the above makes no sense.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Budge' post='1221323' date='Mar 28 2007, 04:26 PM']Oh come on...

Peter was REBUKED by Paul even. the above makes no sense.[/quote]
Peter was rebuked for his behavior. The pope is infallible when declaring a matter of the faith dogmatically. Behavior does not equal dogmatic declaration. If St. Peter had said, "I, in virtue of the authority granted in me to speak in the Name of Jesus Christ on matters of faith and morals, do hereby as His Vicar upon earth acknowledge, hold, and define that eating with Gentiles is a sin," then your point would be valid. St. Peter's behavior only shows that he wasn't following the faith as well as he should have been; it does not indicate that he held the faith to be something it was not.