Historical Events / Text that Demonstrate Papal Infallibility / Papal Supremacy?

Started by Livenotonevil, November 12, 2017, 08:47:00 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Livenotonevil

Don't anecdotally quote Church Fathers (That is, don't just throw me a one sentence quote from Saint Augustine about Peter being the first of the Apostles.) nor use "Leo's Tome" or Clement.

Give me some substantive evidence or proof that the Papacy, in the Early Church, had the same function that is has today.
May God forgive me for my consistent sins of the flesh and any blasphemous and carnal desire, as well as forgive me whenever I act prideful, against the desire of my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, to be a Temple of the Holy Spirit.

Xavier

I take it you didnt see the last response in the earlier thread, then. To continue the discussion from there, Let's take just 2, the incidents leading up to Ecumenical Council III and IV in 431 and 451 A.D.

1. Pope St. Celestine condemning the heretical patriarch Nestorius of Constantinople and upholding St. Cyril of Alexandria. Both St. Cyril and Nestorius appealed to the Apostolic See, the Throne of St. Peter. At the Council of Ephesus, 431 A.D., Ecumenical Council III, Fr. Philip said before the whole assembly, "It is doubtful to none, nay it has been known to all ages, that holy and blessed Peter, the prince and head of the Apostles, the column of the Faith, the foundation of the Catholic Church, received from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of the human race, the keys of the Kingdom, and that to him was given the power of binding and loosing sins, who until this day and for ever lives and judges in his successors. His successor in order and his representative, our holy and most blessed Pope Celestine ..." and the faithful rejoiced as Rome and the whole Church declared that Christ was truly the eternal Word made incarnate flesh, Mary was truly Mother of God, Nestorius was to be excommunicated and St. Peter and his Successors in the Apostolic See of Rome are the Rock and foundation of the Church. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05491a.htm

2. Eutyches begins to spread the Monophysite heresy and Dioscorus of Alexandria does not condemn it. The Robber Council falsely styling itself "ephesus ii" assembled in A.D. 449. But in 451 AD Pope St. Leo the Great annulled it - in his magnificent Tome he taught the Hypostatic union of the divine and human natures in the Person of Christ. The whole Council of Chalcedon acclaimed, "Peter has spoken through Leo". This in Ecumenical Council IV acknowledging the ex cathedra declaration. This same formula would later be used in Ecumenical Council VI "Peter has spoken through Agatho" after Pope St. Agatho condemned Monothelitism. St. Maximus, who fully supported Rome and Pope St. Martin repeatedly told Pyrrhus the heretical patriarch to go to Rome and be judged by his superior the Pope, which was cited earlier. In the same way, St. Peter Chrysologus admonished Eutyches that he must remain united to the Apostolic See of Rome, because there "Blessed Peter ... presides in his own See". To separate from the Apostolic See, where St. Peter's Throne is set up, is condemned.

"We exhort you in every respect, honorable brother, to heed obediently what has been written by the Most Blessed Pope of the City of Rome; for Blessed Peter, who lives and presides in his own see, provides the truth of faith to those who seek it. – Saint Peter Chrysologus, from a letter to Eutyches, 449"

https://catholicsaints.info/saint-peter-chrysologus/

Ecumenical Councils VI and VII and the writings and efforts of Pope St. Agatho and the Greek monk St. Maximus pertaining to the first, and Pope St. Paschal I and the Byzantine monk St. Theodore regarding the second, in successfully overthrowing the Monothelite and Iconoclast heresies are no less demonstrative of Petrine Supremacy but these will do for now.
Bible verses on walking blamelessly with God, after being forgiven from our former sins. Some verses here: https://dailyverses.net/blameless

"[2] He that walketh without blemish, and worketh justice:[3] He that speaketh truth in his heart, who hath not used deceit in his tongue: Nor hath done evil to his neighbour: nor taken up a reproach against his neighbours.(Psalm 14)

"[2] For in many things we all offend. If any man offend not in word, the same is a perfect man."(James 3)

"[14] And do ye all things without murmurings and hesitations; [15] That you may be blameless, and sincere children of God, without reproof, in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation; among whom you shine as lights in the world." (Phil 2:14-15)

Lumen Christi

If Peter and his successors were only to be regarded as "first among equals," why does Our Lord continually single him out?

He changes his name and then says, "Upon this rock [after naming him, essentially, Rock], I will build my Church." Not upon Bartholomew, nor John, nor any of the others.

He specifically prays that Peter's faith fail not.

He tasks Peter with feeding his lambs/sheep.

I'm going to reluctantly share this video with you. I say 'reluctantly' because I think these guys are very far off the mark (they're radical sedevacantists) and even dangerous to unprepared souls who don't know how to counter their arguments. That said, the information in this video of theirs is very good.

[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KV6PXSODgE[/yt]

An aspiring Thomist

Two historical events and the simple fact that the Roman Pontiff is the only one who can even claim supremacy by right show that the Pope has universal jurisdiction.

1. During the  Acacian schism from 484 to 519 all four eastern Patriarchs rejected Chalcedon in favor of Monophysitism. From this we see that a majority of Patriarchs ruling one way is not always reliable.

2. The Great Schism and the following events that led the East and West to be in Schism. The East was less divided than in previous Schism so one might try to argue a simple majority among Bishops is what would determine the true Church. However, much of the East was ravaged by Islam and I believe places like Bulgaria and Russia did not formally split until much latter. So it is difficult to argue the East had a significant more amount of Bishops on their side.

3. The Church of Christ is visible and must be able to recognized as the true Church. There must be some way of distinguishing a false Church from the true one. Given Orthodox ecclesiology, we could not do this during either of the two schisms above. Given Catholic ecclesiology we can.


Livenotonevil

I have question for Mr. Thomist right now - can the Pope overturn tradition, or can tradition overturn the Pope?
I assume that because you are on a "Traditional Catholic" forum.

If I were to be a Catholic, I would have to believe that tradition bins the Pope, because the martyrdom of the Saints like the Iconoclastic Martyrs or Flavian would be in vain, as would the Saints who were martyred by the Roman Empire.

What binds the Orthodox Church is Tradition. Period.
And the Acacian isn't the only time in which the Orthodox Church nearly faced collapse; it would've completely disappeared were it not for Mark of Ephesus, and we believe that God guides the Holy Church and will never let it sink. In fact, these instances of 4 Patriarchs falling into heresy and then coming back to Orthodoxy - as well as the Orthodox Church throwing out Florence - for the Orthodox, only reinforce the fact that there is some kind of external Power which is preventing the ship from sinking.

If we applied your logic in believing that the Pope is used as the de-facto source for truth, and not tradition, then Pope John XXII must've caused the entire Roman Catholic Church to disappear off the face of the earth - not to mention John Paul II's teaching on ecumenism, Pope Benedict XVI not believing in Limbo or any form of Creationism, or Pope Francis - well....



I already anticipate two of your responses -
1. This logic is circular.
2. Well, the Pope isn't infallible "all the time." Only when he decrees infallible statements.



For number 1, NO, it isn't.
Heresy is anything that is novel and tries to change the Faith of the Apostles. Using what was previously believed by the Church, we can use that as the ultimate Criterion for what we should believe in. I point to the Council of Chalcedon, upon which the Fathers analyzed the Tome of Leo alongside Cyril of Alexandria, and the two say the same thing when it comes to the unique functions / inseparability of the two nature of Christ.

For number 2,
The question of what an infallible statement does not seem to have "epistemological" foundations. People still listen to the Pope as the ultimate authority in his encyclicals, and even Traditional Catholics will quote things from Pope Pius XII - yet declarations of belief by the likes of Honorius (who publicly taught heresy) and Vigilius (who decreed by "Apostolic Authority" the orthodoxy of the Three Chapters, and decried those who disagreed - yet he later revoked this decree after the Fifth Ecumenical Council struck his name from the Diptychs). If this wasn't an infallible declaration, what could be? (This is from Michael Whelton's book, Two Paths)

Not to mention the townspeople getting angry at Saint Gregory the Great changing the words of the Liturgy, as well as John XXII publicly decrying the "Beatific Vision."
May God forgive me for my consistent sins of the flesh and any blasphemous and carnal desire, as well as forgive me whenever I act prideful, against the desire of my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, to be a Temple of the Holy Spirit.

Livenotonevil

Quote from: Lumen Christi on November 13, 2017, 03:28:11 AM
If Peter and his successors were only to be regarded as "first among equals," why does Our Lord continually single him out?

He changes his name and then says, "Upon this rock [after naming him, essentially, Rock], I will build my Church." Not upon Bartholomew, nor John, nor any of the others.

He specifically prays that Peter's faith fail not.

He tasks Peter with feeding his lambs/sheep.

I'm going to reluctantly share this video with you. I say 'reluctantly' because I think these guys are very far off the mark (they're radical sedevacantists) and even dangerous to unprepared souls who don't know how to counter their arguments. That said, the information in this video of theirs is very good.

[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KV6PXSODgE[/yt]

No, I'm familiar with Most Holy Family Monastery - one person on an Orthodox forum I'm a part of said they are "seething with demonic energies which you can sense."

I don't know if I've gone that far in describing them as that, but I know who they are.
May God forgive me for my consistent sins of the flesh and any blasphemous and carnal desire, as well as forgive me whenever I act prideful, against the desire of my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, to be a Temple of the Holy Spirit.

Livenotonevil

Quote from: An aspiring Thomist on November 13, 2017, 06:57:19 AM
Two historical events and the simple fact that the Roman Pontiff is the only one who can even claim supremacy by right show that the Pope has universal jurisdiction.

1. During the  Acacian schism from 484 to 519 all four eastern Patriarchs rejected Chalcedon in favor of Monophysitism. From this we see that a majority of Patriarchs ruling one way is not always reliable.

2. The Great Schism and the following events that led the East and West to be in Schism. The East was less divided than in previous Schism so one might try to argue a simple majority among Bishops is what would determine the true Church. However, much of the East was ravaged by Islam and I believe places like Bulgaria and Russia did not formally split until much latter. So it is difficult to argue the East had a significant more amount of Bishops on their side.

3. The Church of Christ is visible and must be able to recognized as the true Church. There must be some way of distinguishing a false Church from the true one. Given Orthodox ecclesiology, we could not do this during either of the two schisms above. Given Catholic ecclesiology we can.

I think you'll find that can be a very murky question of which Church in the Orthodox Church has efficacious grace and which churches do not. For example, when the Soviet government basically forced the Orthodox Church to say that the Soviet government was compatible with Orthodox theology and to support the Soviet Union, that led to a huge question as to whether or not the Russian Orthodox Church during this time period had grace or not. What about ROCOR, who broke communion with every Church except Serbia and wouldn't - until recently - re-enter communion due to the Soviet Russian Orthodox Church? which produced Saints (Saint John Maximovitch being the most clear one, and Seraphim Rose, who isn't canonized but is seen as authoritative and Saint-like)? What about the Orthodox Church - Kiev Patriarch, or the Macedonian Church, which aren't in communion with any Body but claim it's because of politics? What about the Orthodox Church of France, a Church which under Saint John Maximovitch tried to restore the Gallican Liturgy before it was standardized into the Roman Rite (it's "kind of" accurate but has quite a bit of Byzantinization and uses Russian liturgical music),



which was excommunicated for "canonical irregularities" - although they claim it's because they didn't use the Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom?

I mean, similar questions remain in the Roman Catholic Church - what is the canonical status of SSPX or some vangate churches which have broken communion over various ecclesiastical abuses - but still.
May God forgive me for my consistent sins of the flesh and any blasphemous and carnal desire, as well as forgive me whenever I act prideful, against the desire of my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, to be a Temple of the Holy Spirit.

Lumen Christi

Quote from: Livenotonevil on November 13, 2017, 12:19:32 PM
Quote from: Lumen Christi on November 13, 2017, 03:28:11 AM
If Peter and his successors were only to be regarded as "first among equals," why does Our Lord continually single him out?

He changes his name and then says, "Upon this rock [after naming him, essentially, Rock], I will build my Church." Not upon Bartholomew, nor John, nor any of the others.

He specifically prays that Peter's faith fail not.

He tasks Peter with feeding his lambs/sheep.

I'm going to reluctantly share this video with you. I say 'reluctantly' because I think these guys are very far off the mark (they're radical sedevacantists) and even dangerous to unprepared souls who don't know how to counter their arguments. That said, the information in this video of theirs is very good.

[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KV6PXSODgE[/yt]

No, I'm familiar with Most Holy Family Monastery - one person on an Orthodox forum I'm a part of said they are "seething with demonic energies which you can sense."

I don't know if I've gone that far in describing them as that, but I know who they are.

I'm no fan of them, but the video may help clear things up for you.

An aspiring Thomist

1. So, I think I have finally pinned you down. There have been at least a few instances in Church history where the authority of the Church does not and can not provide epistemological grounds for what we should believe via Orthodoxy.  The was not even any method in principle for the Church to decide those controversies via Orthodoxy. There was for Catholicism.   Furthermore, it should be noted these were not petty disagreements over complex and subtle theological questions. These were major theological and ecclesiastical disputes such as what is the true Church of Christ and who are the heretics and what are or are not the true Ecumenical Councils. Your only solution to this problem is to look to Tradition which is good but inadequate, if that is where in principle the buck stops. Surely, the Church IS bounded by Tradition and is ULTIMATELY what decides what Tradition is for us. Otherwise WE are the final judge and the only essential difference between us and Protestants is we have Tradition and happen to be more right.

2. Since you don't have an adequate response, you try to poke holes in Catholicism. Now, if we assume the Church must be visible, is the pillar and groundwork of truth, and must be able to distinguish itself from false Churches in another way besides "we teach the truth they do not", then I have already disproved Orthodoxy and now it is only a matter of explaining and defending the RCC.

3. I can't defend against every historical accusation that is made against the Petrine office, but I do think I can defend the general principles. I think as long as we keep in mind that Tradition, Scripture, and the Church are our sources of truth, much of the difficulties you bring up can be overcome. Another key distinction is that when a Pope does not use the fullness of his authority he does not necessarily represent the Church in the same way that a normal bishop does not always properly represent the Church. Either that or you need to adopt a position like Quaremerepulisti. So if the Pope seems to contradict Tradition, can we contradict him? Well, it depends on the extent to which he is using his authority. If he is using it to fully then we know by Christ's promise that he has not contradicted Tradition. If he is not using his full authority, then it is a prudential decision.



P.s it is also interesting that Rome never fell into heresy in the same way as Eastern Patriarchites did until supposedly the Great Schism. Note that saying something heretical does not make you heretical.


Livenotonevil

Quote from: An aspiring Thomist on November 13, 2017, 02:12:05 PM

P.s it is also interesting that Rome never fell into heresy in the same way as Eastern Patriarchites did until supposedly the Great Schism. Note that saying something heretical does not make you heretical.

Pope Vigilius, whose name was stricken from the Diptychs during the 5th Ecumenical Council? And Pope Honorius, whose writings were formally condemned as heretical (Also, from an Orthodox perspective, Nicholas also fell into heresy)?
May God forgive me for my consistent sins of the flesh and any blasphemous and carnal desire, as well as forgive me whenever I act prideful, against the desire of my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, to be a Temple of the Holy Spirit.

Livenotonevil

Quote from: An aspiring Thomist on November 13, 2017, 02:12:05 PM
1. So, I think I have finally pinned you down. There have been at least a few instances in Church history where the authority of the Church does not and can not provide epistemological grounds for what we should believe via Orthodoxy.  The was not even any method in principle for the Church to decide those controversies via Orthodoxy. There was for Catholicism.   Furthermore, it should be noted these were not petty disagreements over complex and subtle theological questions. These were major theological and ecclesiastical disputes such as what is the true Church of Christ and who are the heretics and what are or are not the true Ecumenical Councils. Your only solution to this problem is to look to Tradition which is good but inadequate, if that is where in principle the buck stops. Surely, the Church IS bounded by Tradition and is ULTIMATELY what decides what Tradition is for us. Otherwise WE are the final judge and the only essential difference between us and Protestants is we have Tradition and happen to be more right.

2. Since you don't have an adequate response, you try to poke holes in Catholicism. Now, if we assume the Church must be visible, is the pillar and groundwork of truth, and must be able to distinguish itself from false Churches in another way besides "we teach the truth they do not", then I have already disproved Orthodoxy and now it is only a matter of explaining and defending the RCC.

3. I can't defend against every historical accusation that is made against the Petrine office, but I do think I can defend the general principles. I think as long as we keep in mind that Tradition, Scripture, and the Church are our sources of truth, much of the difficulties you bring up can be overcome. Another key distinction is that when a Pope does not use the fullness of his authority he does not necessarily represent the Church in the same way that a normal bishop does not always properly represent the Church. Either that or you need to adopt a position like Quaremerepulisti. So if the Pope seems to contradict Tradition, can we contradict him? Well, it depends on the extent to which he is using his authority. If he is using it to fully then we know by Christ's promise that he has not contradicted Tradition. If he is not using his full authority, then it is a prudential decision.



P.s it is also interesting that Rome never fell into heresy in the same way as Eastern Patriarchites did until supposedly the Great Schism. Note that saying something heretical does not make you heretical.

Bold Point #1. Councils, which still happened post-schism. Yes, there were Robber Councils - but I will point out that I think its funny that post-schism, all of sudden there are no more Robber Councils from the Roman Catholic perspective. Tradition is used as a criteria for reading councils, which is why in Roman Catholicism many people don't interpret Vatican II TOO literally, because it would be contradictory to Florence.

Bold Point #2. That is why we are required to have "Faith" in what we truly believe to be right. And every single human being has Free Will.

Bold Point #3. When is he using his "full authority?"
May God forgive me for my consistent sins of the flesh and any blasphemous and carnal desire, as well as forgive me whenever I act prideful, against the desire of my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, to be a Temple of the Holy Spirit.

An aspiring Thomist

Quote from: Livenotonevil on November 13, 2017, 02:24:12 PM
Quote from: An aspiring Thomist on November 13, 2017, 02:12:05 PM
1. So, I think I have finally pinned you down. There have been at least a few instances in Church history where the authority of the Church does not and can not provide epistemological grounds for what we should believe via Orthodoxy.  The was not even any method in principle for the Church to decide those controversies via Orthodoxy. There was for Catholicism.   Furthermore, it should be noted these were not petty disagreements over complex and subtle theological questions. These were major theological and ecclesiastical disputes such as what is the true Church of Christ and who are the heretics and what are or are not the true Ecumenical Councils. Your only solution to this problem is to look to Tradition which is good but inadequate, if that is where in principle the buck stops. Surely, the Church IS bounded by Tradition and is ULTIMATELY what decides what Tradition is for us. Otherwise WE are the final judge and the only essential difference between us and Protestants is we have Tradition and happen to be more right.

2. Since you don't have an adequate response, you try to poke holes in Catholicism. Now, if we assume the Church must be visible, is the pillar and groundwork of truth, and must be able to distinguish itself from false Churches in another way besides "we teach the truth they do not", then I have already disproved Orthodoxy and now it is only a matter of explaining and defending the RCC.

3. I can't defend against every historical accusation that is made against the Petrine office, but I do think I can defend the general principles. I think as long as we keep in mind that Tradition, Scripture, and the Church are our sources of truth, much of the difficulties you bring up can be overcome. Another key distinction is that when a Pope does not use the fullness of his authority he does not necessarily represent the Church in the same way that a normal bishop does not always properly represent the Church. Either that or you need to adopt a position like Quaremerepulisti. So if the Pope seems to contradict Tradition, can we contradict him? Well, it depends on the extent to which he is using his authority. If he is using it to fully then we know by Christ's promise that he has not contradicted Tradition. If he is not using his full authority, then it is a prudential decision.



P.s it is also interesting that Rome never fell into heresy in the same way as Eastern Patriarchites did until supposedly the Great Schism. Note that saying something heretical does not make you heretical.

Bold Point #1. Councils, which still happened post-schism. Yes, there were Robber Councils - but I will point out that I think its funny that post-schism, all of sudden there are no more Robber Councils from the Roman Catholic perspective. Tradition is used as a criteria for reading councils, which is why in Roman Catholicism many people don't interpret Vatican II TOO literally, because it would be contradictory to Florence.

I can say the same about the East not having Ecumenical Councils and there ha e been robber Councils. They have not been as major, but that is probably due to the fact that Papal primacy has become more clear.

One instance of the Pope using the fullness of his authority is defining something ex cathedra. Another is when he ratifies an Ecumenical Council. There are other times too.

Lumen Christi

If you don't mind me saying, it's a bit difficult to help out in an adequate way when you've set the conditions for discussion/debate.

"Don't anecdotally quote Church Fathers (That is, don't just throw me a one sentence quote from Saint Augustine about Peter being the first of the Apostles.) nor use "Leo's Tome" or Clement."

I showed you a video that contained 24 minutes worth of information in it, and you seem to have just dismissed it due to the source. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Livenotonevil

I haven't watched it yet, nor did I intend to "dismiss it" because of the source. So I'm sorry for giving off that impression - it's just that one can enter "too deep" into the rabbit hole with Holy Family Monastery, and waste too much time disproving something you know as a doctrinal fact is a contradiction (i.e., that the True Church is fragmented and invisible).

I'll watch it though.
May God forgive me for my consistent sins of the flesh and any blasphemous and carnal desire, as well as forgive me whenever I act prideful, against the desire of my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, to be a Temple of the Holy Spirit.

Lumen Christi

Quote from: Livenotonevil on November 14, 2017, 05:35:09 PM
I haven't watched it yet, nor did I intend to "dismiss it" because of the source. So I'm sorry for giving off that impression - it's just that one can enter "too deep" into the rabbit hole with Holy Family Monastery, and waste too much time disproving something you know as a doctrinal fact is a contradiction (i.e., that the True Church is fragmented and invisible).

I'll watch it though.
It's okay. I'm sorry if I responded a bit too quickly. It just seemed like it was getting glossed over due to the source. Like I said, I'm definitely no fan of them either, but I find this video of theirs to be well thought out and sensible.