tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post1784342783290935792..comments2024-03-24T15:19:06.377-04:00Comments on The Continuum: Anglicans and the BVMFr. Robert Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comBlogger55125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-78983453024803006942008-10-12T04:57:00.000-04:002008-10-12T04:57:00.000-04:00Fr Wells,It is clear from the Scriptures that Mary...Fr Wells,<BR/><BR/>It is clear from the Scriptures that Mary did not cease to be called Jesus' mother even after the Ascension. See Acts 1.14. The E and W Churches have concurred in this title "Mother of God" as being effectively theologically equivalent to Theotokos for well over a millenium, so it is binding teaching due to Scripture an Tradition.<BR/><BR/>And Reason shows us why it is incontrovertible. Motherhood is not essentially about having unending authority to command even for us, let alone Jesus! Motherhood is essentially a relation deriving from a biological <B>and historical</B> fact. Even God cannot change that which has happened into that which literally has never happened, and this has nothing to do with limits to his power either. So, once a mother, always a mother.Fr Matthew Kirbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14386951752314314095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-81239318101452012772008-10-12T04:46:00.000-04:002008-10-12T04:46:00.000-04:00Ok, c4 link changed back to our blog. Unfortunatel...Ok, c4 link changed back to our blog. Unfortunately people will have to read from the bottom! Well, sort of.Fr Matthew Kirbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14386951752314314095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-44050550700354541962008-10-12T04:37:00.000-04:002008-10-12T04:37:00.000-04:00Diane,As to the rest of your arguments based on th...Diane,<BR/><BR/>As to the rest of your arguments based on the necessary perfect unicity of the Catholic Church, I have already answered these objections in full. Go to the "Fr Kirby's Apologetics" page under Resources at the right of our weblog. In particular, see the C4, C6 and C8 links. Actually, strike C4, the linked page has been wrecked by its host site. Go instead to the Jan 2006 archives of this blog for the article (in 3 parts) "Catholic Ecumenism and the Elephant in the Room".Fr Matthew Kirbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14386951752314314095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-6928390225032537712008-10-12T04:17:00.000-04:002008-10-12T04:17:00.000-04:00Diane,The weakest part of your argument is where y...Diane,<BR/><BR/>The weakest part of your argument is where you appeal to the statements of Papal legates at Ecumenical Councils of the first millenuium because they were not refuted or rejected. There are two problems with this. <BR/><BR/>Firstly, the fact that you have to appeal to these is precisely because there are no doctrinal or canonical statements ratified by the Councils as a whole that come close to explicitly supporting your position. Thus, you are forced to resort to statements made by individuals at a Council which were not subject to a vote or even debate. They were mere <I>obiter dicta</I> which did not engage the essential issues. Why, if the Pope always had a universal jurisdiction over all other dioceses with their bishops, clergy and laity that was <I>sui generis</I> and manifest to all, was this never mentioned, even when directly related to matters that were being legislated in the Conciliar canon law, such as the rights of primatial bishops and the "order" of the patriarchates? The fact that such claims were made at Ecumenical Councils but were not commented on at all AND did not ever come to be incorporated into authorised conciliar statements does not support your theory, it supplies an enormous obstacle to it.<BR/><BR/>Secondly, given the above facts, the silence of the Eastern bishops about these papal claims in particular not only does not prove their tacit acquiescence, it has a much more natural explanation which is rather obvious. Politeness. Incredibly obsequious (to our ears) addresses to high officials were the norm then anyway, with even bishops of Rome using this kind of language at times in addressing other bishops, so it was unlikely the other bishops would make a point of starting an argument over a title just because they thought it was exaggerated. Especially since they did not object to some sort of Roman primacy anyway.<BR/><BR/>If the theory that <I>universal episcopal jurisdiction for the Roman Bishop (and one which implies complete freedom to rule and make binding decrees and no possibility of appeal against a Roman decision) was always the manifest and clear teaching of the whole Church and thus satisfies the Vincentian Canon</I> is true then counterfactuals must be excluded. That is, one should not be able to find opinions or actions inconsistent with it expressed or performed by a significant number of significant Fathers, for example. But one finds exactly this in Ss Irenaeus, Cyprian, Basil, Augustine, et al. Many Fathers have openly disputed, rejected or ignored purportedly binding Roman decisions (including excommunications) and attempts to interfere with or over-rule local decisions. The very fact that this is barely imaginable as an option for a modern bishop in the RCC is sufficient proof that the monarchical position of the present Pope is materially different to the position of the ancient bishop of Rome.Fr Matthew Kirbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14386951752314314095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-35645459918424738102008-10-11T23:21:00.000-04:002008-10-11T23:21:00.000-04:00It seems that Diane insists on continuing her argu...It seems that <B>Diane</B> insists on continuing her argument. But, this is our blog, and so her latest comment is going to be intertwined with my answers. It will be posted here in its entirety, but in this format so as not to burden the readers.<BR/><BR/><I>Fr. Hart, <BR/> <BR/> I said that good works were PART of the salvific equation. Also, my Church does not teach that 'good works can buy salvation'....this statement makes you sound like a card-carrying Baptist!</I><BR/><BR/>Baptists with cards?<BR/><BR/>I said that your church (the RCC) does not teach that good works can buy salvation. A Baptist would probably say the opposite. Gee, can’t we agree to agree-on some points- agreeably?<BR/> <BR/><I>The following books are good reads to show that universal jurisdiction of the pope reaches back to antiquity, example after example of the pope being the final arbiter in theological disputes and the Eastern Churches asking for papal intervention:<BR/> <BR/>-Eastern Churches and the Papacy by Herbert Scott<BR/>-The Church in Crisis by (English priest) Philip Hughes<BR/>-The Early Papacy by Adrian Fortescue</I><BR/><BR/>If the following examples of pure hogwash (which I will mark with “HG”) come from these books, then they can't be worth reading. Some of the “facts” below are absolutely untrue.<BR/> <BR/><I>The reason why Rome was last to 'sign' was not an issue of logistics, it was because the pope needed to ratify council decrees. Whether the pope attended councils matters not...legates attend for him, as you know. The pope(s) didn't even attend the Council of Trent! </I> <BR/> <BR/>All the bishops had to agree, especially the patriarchs. The pope could not, all by himself, make a council Ecumenical. <BR/><BR/><I>Papal universal jurisdiction is of divine origin and not something that developed due to historical reasons. I know Anglicans accept only a 'constitutional primacy' of the Bishop of Rome but history shows otherwise...this from Steven O'Reilly:</I><BR/><BR/>Canon 28, Council of Chalcedon: “Following in every way the decrees of the holy fathers and recognising the canon which has recently been read out--the canon of the 150 most devout bishops who assembled in the time of the great Theodosius of pious memory, then emperor, in imperial Constantinople, new Rome -- we issue the same decree and resolution concerning the prerogatives of the most holy church of the same Constantinople, new Rome. The fathers rightly accorded prerogatives to the see of older Rome, <B>since that is an imperial city; and moved by the same purpose the 150 most devout bishops apportioned <I>equal</I> prerogatives to the most holy see of new Rome</B>, reasonably judging that the city which is honoured by the imperial power and senate and enjoying privileges equalling older imperial Rome, should also be elevated to her level in ecclesiastical affairs and take second place after her.”<BR/><BR/>Divine origin? The holy fathers at Chalcedon seemed to think only in terms of the politics of their time, the two seats of the Empire.<BR/> <BR/>HG: <I>There are explicit references to the pope being considered such. St. Ignatius (ca. 110), bishop of Antioch, speaks of the Roman Church as having "presidency" (Letter to the Romans) while Tertullian (220), in his heretical phase, mocks the pope as "bishop of bishops" (On Modesty). The bishop of Rome was addressed by the fathers at the Council of Arles (314) as their "most holy lord"; at Sardica (342)-attended by bishops of West and East, including Athanasius-the pope was addressed as the "head"; and at Milevis (416) as "chief."</I> <BR/><BR/>The patriarchates were established early on, and then apparently with those bishops as Archbishops or Primates. Each of the examples above is limited to the western churches, and the bishop of Rome was clearly the Patriarch of the West. Nothing in these examples proves universal primacy.<BR/><BR/>HG: <I>At Ephesus (431) no objection was made when the papal legates spoke of the pope as the "holy head," and by way of being Peter's successor as "head of the whole faith" and "head of the Apostles." Nor at Chalcedon were objections raised to the pope being called "the head of all the churches" and "archbishop of all the churches" by the papal legates. The emperor Constantinople III (680) refers to the pope as "sacred head." Other examples are rife.</I><BR/><BR/>Peter’s leadership of the apostles in early times is obvious simply from the Book of Acts. But, none of this translates into universal primacy of Rome, neither universal acceptance of such a role. The Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon simply don’t have these statements in the records. The closest thing to this in Chalcedon is what I already quoted above, with portions in bold type. The terms “head of all the churches” and “archbishop of all the churches” must have been invented by one of the authors whose books you suggest, because these phrases do not appear in the records of the Council. Since we have no evidence of such statements it seems rather unimportant that we also have no objections. Why object to what was never said?<BR/><BR/><I>Anti-Catholic apologists pass over in silence the evidence from the councils that supports the Roman primacy. Nicaea explicitly adopted for the universal Church the ancient Roman custom for dating Easter and adhered to the Roman practice regarding the baptisms of heretics. Pope Dionysius essentially defined the Nicene Christological doctrine the previous century when he intervened in a doctrinal dispute in Alexandria.<BR/><BR/>Anti-Catholic apologists also assert the popes had no part in convoking or approving the councils. They claim Pope Sylvester did not convoke the council of Nicaea. While many early writings speak of Constantine's role alone in convoking Nicaea, it does not follow this precludes papal involvement. The fathers of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, Constantinople III (680), expressly noted that Constantine and Pope Sylvester assembled the Council of Nicaea. Anti Catholics imply this statement was an attempt by Constantinople III to cover up the role of emperors in earlier councils: "Later centuries would find the idea of an ecumenical council being called by anyone but the bishop of Rome, the pope, unthinkable. . . . Hence long after Nicaea, in A.D. 680, the story began to circulate that in fact the bishop of Rome called the Council" (Christian Research Journal, Spring 1997, 34).</I><BR/><BR/>So what? The fact is this: None of the seven Ecumenical Councils was called by the pope. It is not important in itself; it is simply a sad fact that many RC writers today insist that the pope called them all, when in fact he called none of them. <BR/><BR/>By the way, “Anti-Catholic apologists” don’t write for this blog. The problem is, when we defend Anglicans from polemicists who try to overturn their faith and harm their consciences, the same polemicists say we’re “anti-Catholic.” Defending our position makes us "anti-Catholic" only by your terms.<BR/><BR/><I>The facts oppose this anti-Catholic position. It is clear from the proceedings of the Council of Nicaea that the Council fathers acknowledged the Council was called by the reigning emperor. They did not think the idea of an ecumenical council being called by anyone but a pope to be "unthinkable." The truth is, there was no motive for Constantinople III to claim what it did about the pope's role at Nicaea other than the Council in 680 believed it to be true.</I><BR/><BR/>The records have never even indicated that the Councils were called by any Bishop of Rome. It only matters to those who want to rewrite history so as to make it conform to modern rules of the Magisterium.<BR/><BR/><I>Not all the early ecumenical councils were called by the pope. But there is no need for Catholics to deny or minimize the actual role played by the emperors in convoking councils. The maintenance of civil order certainly gave emperors a natural interest in seeing religious disputes resolved. At such times, the interests of civil and religious authorities coincided. Even if the impetus for the first councils came initially, primarily, or even exclusively from the emperor-as it certainly did on many occasions-the fact doesn't undermine the Roman primacy. The essential point is that the resolution of the crisis from a dogmatic or ecclesiastical standpoint could not contradict the declarations of the Roman see, a fact recognized by both emperors and councils. As Socrates Scholasticus in his history of the fourth-century Church attested: "An ecclesiastical canon commands that the churches shall not make any ordinances against the opinion of the bishop of Rome" (The Ecclesiastical History II, 8).</I><BR/><BR/>Really? What Canon? The fifth through the seventh Councils clearly do not give the same regard to the pope that Ephesus and Chalcedon did; Pope Honorius the heretic seems to have soured the reputation of the Roman Church. The evidence is clear: No longer is Rome mentioned in the same way (and even so, it was <I>never</I> mentioned in terms that agree with post Tridentine RCism). The fathers seemed quite willing to proceed without Rome’s approval, which is what they did. <BR/><BR/>HG<I>The acts of the ecumenical councils demonstrate it was unlawful to attempt anything in opposition to the apostolic see. The papal legates at the Council of Chalcedon objected to the seating of Dioscorus, who had a prominent role in the "Robber Synod," on the grounds that " he dared to hold a synod without the authority of the Apostolic See, a thing which had never taken place nor can take place." The council removed Dioscorus from his place without questioning the legitimacy of the charge. Furthermore, no objection was made when the legates placed papal decrees on par with conciliar decrees.</I><BR/><BR/>The offense was holding a synod within a diocese without the permission of the Bishop. The same rule applied equally everywhere. The last sentence is HG (for hogwash) because it makes no sense at all. The pope could not decree anything for the whole church, only for the area in which he was archbishop (or patriarch). Again, why object to what was never said? A decree of the Roman Bishop was not authoritative in, for example, Constantinople.<BR/><BR/><I>A similar understanding of papal authority is reflected in the proceedings of the earlier ecumenical Council of Ephesus (431) where the council fathers declared they were "compelled" by the canons and decision of Pope Celestine to depose the heretic Nestorius. Local councils of the fourth and fifth centuries such as Arles, Sardica, Carthage, and Milevis sought papal confirmation of their acts. Similar examples are found among the surviving writings of the ecumenical councils, such as Chalcedon and Constantinople III. While the ravages of time and history have deprived us of the necessary evidence to prove beyond a doubt that the Council of Nicaea sought and obtained papal confirmation, there are enough references in the writings of subsequent popes and councils to accept this as highly probable.</I><BR/><BR/>The last part of this is not worth answering; the first part seems to indicate a misunderstanding. Of course the arguments of Pope Celestine were compelling-very compelling. That is the arguments (we call this apologetics), not some authority to command agreement.<BR/><BR/><I>Given the importance of tradition in the early Church and its abhorrence of doctrinal innovation, it strains credulity to assert the Roman primacy was a later innovation rather than a reflection of a more ancient understanding of the true structure of the Church. The fact that the early ecumenical councils-all held in the East-neither questioned nor objected to these papal claims and actions, but rather supported them in word and deed, is evidence of the universal acceptance of the Roman primacy by the early Church.</I><BR/><BR/>So, the unanimous rejection of Rome’s claims by the Roman Patriarch in 1054 doesn’t count? Was this no longer “the early Church” then?<BR/><BR/><I>When the evidence is examined, we see in every age of the Church the truth of Ireneaus's words about the Roman Church: "For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world" (Against Heresies 3:3:2). These words are founded on Christ's own words to Peter: that he is the "rock" upon which the Church is built; what he binds or looses is bound or loosed in heaven; that to him were given the keys of the kingdom (Matt. 16:18-19); and that he must "feed" and "tend" the Lord's entire flock (John 21:15-17).</I> <BR/><BR/>Before Honorius Rome had never lost its reputation for being doctrinally pure. Ireneaus (writing in the west, what is now France) was impressed by a double apostolic foundation, and the defense of the Faith that had been characteristic of the Roman See up to that time, and for a long time afterwards. Read through the lens of modern times, the words of the Bishop of Lyons take on a meaning he could never have intended or imagined. <BR/><BR/><I>Your last statement is flat-out wrong and shows the loosy-goosy nature of your theology: <BR/> <BR/>I know that you may view some people as correct on some theological issues and incorrect on others. What I'm saying is that this view is not supported in tradition or in Scripture as acceptable. </I> <BR/><BR/>No, it is not acceptable. And, that is why I am not a RC. Added to the fact that “the Church of Rome also hath erred” is the burden of infallibility, and the need to defend even the worst parts of its teaching over the centuries, as if the Tradition were equal to mere precedents. <BR/> <BR/><I>B16 can't possibly 'guide me right' unless he has it ALL right...because on the issues where he is wrong (you say), he will be leading me off Christ's path, which is to be lead to Satan.</I> <BR/><BR/>So, unless the pope is infallible you will be dammed? What a burden. I cannot fathom the weight of it.<BR/> <BR/><I>Jesus left us a unified Catholic Church to guide us...a church that is 100% correct in all matters of doctrine and moral teaching because it is guided by the Holy Spirit. To be outside of this church is to cease to be Catholic.</I><BR/> <BR/>To Anglicans this is water off a duck’s back, because everything you say about the Catholic Church we apply to ourselves; “I believe in the Holy Catholic Church,” “I believe One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.” Do you think we are talking only about someone else, or about ourselves? <BR/><BR/><I>With this in mind, anyone who views the Catholic Church as divided into 3 factions (Roman, Anglican and Orthodox) must be wrong, because Jesus' Catholic Church can not have error...the gates of Hell will not prevail against it.</I><BR/><BR/>St. Paul addressed schism within the Church, and corrected false teaching within the Church as an apostle. The means of knowing true doctrine are present in the Tradition (not mere precedent), Scripture, and can be understood by those whose minds are sane, that is, who have Right Reason. <BR/> <BR/><I>If you feel that my Church and the Orthodox Church teach 'some error', than have the guts to say that they are not Catholic. If you feel that your Anglican Catholic Church is the only Church that teaches no error, than you must go for it and call it the Catholic Church and nothing else.</I><BR/><BR/>What I don’t have the “guts” -or desire- to do is tell a lie. The churches of the East and of Rome have erred at times, but never has the Universal Church erred, and never has the Church lost the true Faith. I do not accept the premise of your remark: That is, “and nothing else.” The whole One True Church mentality is error: <BR/>I Corinthians 12:<BR/>14: For the body is not one member, but many. <BR/>15: If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? <BR/>16: And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? <BR/>17: If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling? <BR/>18: But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him. <BR/>19: And if they were all one member, where were the body? <BR/>20: But now are they many members, yet but one body. <BR/>21: And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you. <BR/>22: Nay, much more those members of the body, which seem to be more feeble, are necessary:”<BR/><BR/><I>My Church claims to be the sole Church with the fullness of the faith...it claims to be the sole protector of the total deposit of faith....the audacity to make such claims speaks to the truth of the Catholic Church (my definition).</I><BR/><BR/>In other words, "we’re right because we’re infallible." That is called a tautology in philosophy.<BR/><BR/>II Cor. 11:<BR/><BR/>1: Would to God ye could bear with me a little in my folly: and indeed bear with me.<BR/>2: For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.<BR/>3: But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.<BR/> <BR/>This council, that council, who said what in 342, or 585-what a distracting load of...I won't say it to a lady.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-7070563663993815872008-10-09T22:59:00.000-04:002008-10-09T22:59:00.000-04:00Reynaldo:Your first paragraph does not merit any r...Reynaldo:<BR/><BR/>Your first paragraph does not merit any reply, for it does not deserve to be taken seriously. <BR/><BR/>However, I will answer the second paragraph:<BR/><BR/><I>Yes Mary is a Co-redemptrix, and so are you in so much that you may help some soul to the light of Christ.</I><BR/><BR/>Not so. The title, as far as it has any theological meaning, speaks of taking on oneself the sins of others to save them. We are able to work with God as his instruments, but we are not able to redeem anyone. <BR/><BR/>"None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him." Psalm 49:7Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-9526053934145162262008-10-09T18:07:00.000-04:002008-10-09T18:07:00.000-04:00("Infallibility is needed if there is to be a fina...("Infallibility is needed if there is to be a final arbitur..." Yes, but that arbiter is the Universal Episcopate, not the pope.)<BR/> I guess we can’t believe the bible because Matthew, Mark, Luke and John must not have been Infallible since they where not part of an Ecumenical Council at time of writing.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Yes Mary is a Co-redemptrix, and so are you in so much that you may help some soul to the light of Christ.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-81566190879410781332008-10-06T00:21:00.000-04:002008-10-06T00:21:00.000-04:00Diane:I don't want to do this; and, I do this only...Diane:<BR/><BR/>I don't want to do this; and, I do this only to defend our people from the idea that we have any obligation to swim the murky waters of the Tiber.<BR/><BR/>Answers to your points:<BR/><BR/>Point 1: The issue is that the Church in Ecumenical Council did condemn him for heresy. This means two things: a) They did not believe in his infallibility, OR infallibility is a useless concept (having been used "properly" only twice, and then in modern times, and then for doctrines that had <I>never</I> been Church dogma); and b) since the real instrument of Infallibility is the voice of the Church in Ecumencial Council ("<I>We</I> have the mind of Christ", said St.Paul, not, "Peter has the mind of Christ."), Pope Honorius really was in the wrong doctrinally, even though it was a matter more of neglect and letting the heresy slip by with his endorsement (but, what was that about defending the truth?- well, we will get to that). <BR/><BR/>2. You said, "Regarding Urban: clearly he was not make a statement as official teaching to the whole Church." Once again, how do we know when the pope is speaking infallibly? Apparently only when he is not clearly wrong, as this example demonstrates. Frankly, to be told by a pope that you will be rewarded with eternal bliss for killing infidels sounds like something to be taken as doctrine, as authoritative (perhaps he should be called Osama Urban). <BR/><BR/>3.You don't know Catholic doctrine. You cannot save yourself by good works. Rather, they are the fruit of faith, a necessary part of repentance in many cases, but not something that buys salvation (which your own church teaches too).<BR/><BR/>4. Your system of faith is indeed very close to mine. But, I do not have to defend as infallible a whole set of precedents, the failure of any one of which would destroy the whole. <BR/><BR/>5. "Infallibility is needed if there is to be a final arbitur..." Yes, but that arbiter is the Universal Episcopate, not the pope. Therefore, the Church defended the truth in Ecumenical Council, never by appealing to Rome for a definitive answer. "God knew what He was doing when he gave Peter not only 'primacy' (which I expect that you accept) but the role of final arbitur." God never gave Peter, by himself as an individual, any such thing.<BR/><BR/>6. "'First among equals' is an orthodox creation...nothing in Scripture supports it." This title was used by Pope John Paul II in the intro of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Popes have always used it (but, you are right that nothing in scripture supports it). "You know the verses that support the primacy of Peter.." I know the verses that are so <I>used</I>. The interpretation is forced and awkward.<BR/><BR/>7. "When you look at all of the final decisions made by the pope in the 1st millenium, you see how the role of 'final arbitur' is supported in history. Popes were constantly intervening in affairs of west and east to save the Church from one heresy or another...this shows the universal jurisdiction."<BR/><BR/>This is simply not true at all. No Ecumenical Council was called by any pope at any time; neither did any pope attend one, and only once did a pope send a written message to such a Council. His vote was the last vote of all the bishops usually because they took longer in Rome. This constant intervention of which you speak is simply a myth. The method was conciliar.<BR/><BR/>8. This point requires the standard RC interpretation, an interpretation not shared universally. The fact is obvious; if this were the universal teaching of the Church it would be the universal teaching of the Church; but, clearly it is not the universal teaching of the Church, which means that it is not the universal teaching of the Church (otherwise it would be the universal teaching of the Church). Just try to get an "amen" to your view from the Patriarchs of the east.<BR/>9. "nothing in Scripture supports that we or our Church leaders can be right about some things and than be in error on 'particulars'." No, but common sense does. It is quite obvious that you can be right about many things, even the most important things, but wrong about others.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-82064266167185148062008-10-05T22:33:00.000-04:002008-10-05T22:33:00.000-04:00Fr. Hart,1. Regarding Honorius: to condense it dow...Fr. Hart,<BR/>1. Regarding Honorius: to condense it down, he did not teach monothelitism...to do so would have been to teach it as official doctrine to the whole Church...this he did not do. His letter was only to the East and spoke of 'one energy'....a murky statement anyway you look at it. It was the Emperor Heraklios that proclaimed monothelitism as official doctrine, not the Pope. That Honorious chose not to clarify the issue of monothelitism does not constitute a failure of infallibility. **Remember to apply the charism of infallibility as it is actually defined, not by what you think it means.<BR/>2. Regarding Urban: clearly he was not make a statement as official teaching to the whole Church.<BR/>3. Regarding "the error of a righteousness by good works(?) doctrine": Righteousness by good works is not an error. Salvation is a process...I'm sure you know that. How we live and what we do are part of the salvation equation.<BR/>4. Regarding your statement about my "system of faith": My system of faith is in most ways close to yours (as compared to a Pentacostal's, for instance), so I wouldn't call it 'fragile' if I were you.<BR/>5. Infallibility is needed if there is to be a final arbitur (and there must be)...there is plenty of evidence for this need.. the endless schism, individual interpretation, twisting of doctrines/teachings, etc. that has/is going on in Christendom. God knew what He was doing when he gave Peter not only 'primacy' (which I expect that you accept) but the role of final arbitur.<BR/>6. 'First among equals' is an orthodox creation...nothing in Scripture supports it. You know the verses that support the primacy of Peter..I think our only disagreement is to what extent that primacy exists.<BR/>7. When you look at all of the final decisions made by the pope in the 1st millenium, you see how the role of 'final arbitur' is supported in history. Popes were constantly intervening in affairs of west and east to save the Church from one heresy or another...this shows the universal jurisdiction.<BR/>The externals of the papacy may have developed (like an acorn develops into an oak tree), but the role of final arbitur, not teaching heresy to the whole of the church regarding faith/morals, and applying universal jurisdiction when needed are the same now as then. <BR/>8. I accept the soundness of B16, but for different reasons than you do. You say he will lead me in the right direction...this is based on your own opinions and your own authority. I accept that he will lead me in the right direction based on the fact that he heads the Church ('you are Peter and upon this rock...'etc) that Jesus said will be guided by the Holy Spirit. It's not my opinion or my authority (I have none) that leads me to the same conclusion that you have come to...that B16 will guide me right. I don't have to make judgement calls about each and every pope. <BR/>9.That you say B16 will guide us correctly while being in error on 'particulars' is puzzling....nothing in Scripture supports that we or our Church leaders can be right about some things and than be in error on 'particulars'. Jesus gave us specifics and none are negotiable or open to interpretation. If B16 is in error about any of it, he can't 'lead us right'. To be in error on any of it is to be opposite Christ, which is to follow Satan.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-84375871232749928852008-10-05T19:21:00.000-04:002008-10-05T19:21:00.000-04:00If Bishop Ratzinger were really typical of what RC...If Bishop Ratzinger were really typical of what RC's believe and practice, I could seriously entertain the thought of submitting to him. But alas....Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-47198648967851630612008-10-05T17:53:00.000-04:002008-10-05T17:53:00.000-04:00...I naturally assumed that Mary was mother of the...<I>...I naturally assumed that Mary was mother of the entire Trinity.</I><BR/><BR/>I suggest we keep it quiet, or some Cardinal in South America might get wind of this and add it to "co-mediatrix," proposing that it be made part of the Church's dogma. <BR/><BR/>On a serious note, I must admit that this is a brand new idea to me. That some people, especially among RCs, expect Mary to exert pressure on the Uncreated and Eternal Son of God (perhaps by threatening to withhold his allowance) is something that I actually have encountered however. But, I never thought of this as an inherent problem with terminology as much as simply another symptom of their delight in ignorance, and the value they place on having a deficit of thought and a vacuum of knowledge, as a sort of religious duty. <BR/><BR/>Frankly, I don't know how Papa Ratzinger finds the patience to put up with so many of them.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-40865470193706119562008-10-05T14:49:00.000-04:002008-10-05T14:49:00.000-04:00The first time in my life I heard that Catholics b...The first time in my life I heard that Catholics believe that Mary is the Mother of God, I had the knowledge of a 13 year old brought up in a Protestant Sunday School.<BR/>Since I had memorized the catechism statement "There is only one God," I naturally assumed that Mary was mother of the entire Trinity. I learned better in a course in "Early Christian Thought" as an under-graduate in a Protestant college, where I was taught that the formula is both correct and neccesary. But like it or not, this is how the expression "mother of God" comes across, and it does not help much to invoke the excuse that "almost any language about God contains dangers." That's exactly why we have the science of theology, Fr Hart, to minimize those dangers by being as precise as we possibly can be. That's why theologians need to be skilled in the sacred languages and why good theological textbooks spend much ink on Hebrew, Greek, and Latin word studies.<BR/><BR/>I suspect that naive Protestants are not the only one who have a muddy and murky notion about what "Mother of God" really means. The generic term "mother" has a wide range of meanings, only one of which is an accurate translation of the term Theotokos. Much popular RC devotion (I am thinking of the prayer Memorare) appears to view the Blessed Virgin as still exercising a maternal authority over God Incarnate. So I would regard Pelikan's explication of the term Theotokos as both accurate and necessary, even if too awkward for ordinary devotional use. (This brings to mind Santayana's aphorism about not really believing there is a God, but being very sure that Mary is His mother.) So I would sum up the problem by asking: since Mary WAS the mother of God in giving birth to God Incarnate, is it really correct to say she IS the mother of God for all eternity? How does she exercise a maternal role for Him now?<BR/>LKW<BR/><BR/>btw, I am not the "anonymous" who introduced the quote from Pelikan, but I wish that I were. <BR/>devotional useAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-78637718090239547092008-10-05T00:03:00.000-04:002008-10-05T00:03:00.000-04:00With respect to the term "Theotokos", wasn't it Ja...<I>With respect to the term "Theotokos", wasn't it Jaroslav Jan Pelikan who favored the translation "the one who gave birth to the one who was god"?</I><BR/><BR/>Ok, but, do you really want to say, "Holy Mary, the one who gave birth to the one who was God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death?" I find it a bit cumbersome myself.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-80735855399562228172008-10-04T23:59:00.000-04:002008-10-04T23:59:00.000-04:00Diane:We need not show where popes have erred to a...Diane:<BR/><BR/>We need not show where popes have erred to ask for evidence that this office has a charism of infallibility. And what would be the point? I could say, for example, that Pope Honorius was condemned for heresy at the Fifth Ecumenical Council. But, there is a stock RC answer to that fact, one which does not satisfy me, and which they did not need to create until 1870. I could speak of Pope Urban promising eternal life to those who would plunder and kill as crusaders, but there is a stock answer to that rather peculiar example of the error of a righteousness by good works(?) doctrine.<BR/><BR/>In point of fact, I really fear that if I shake your faith in the Roman Magisterium I would possibly shake your faith in Christ. The system of faith that requires the Infallibility of the Pope is fragile, like any other fundamentalist system. It is like the faith of a Baptist who thinks that unless he can believe in a literal 6/24 creation, and a historical Adam and Eve in a real geographical garden, he cannot believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God who rose from the dead. Such systems are there for those who are "weak in faith," and I fear the harm I may do if I knock down the first domino.<BR/><BR/>Besides, I believe that if you follow the teaching of Benedict XVI you will be saved. Despite my disagreement with his classic RC particulars, he will guide you right.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-38197332712053745802008-10-04T23:43:00.000-04:002008-10-04T23:43:00.000-04:00With respect to the term "Theotokos", wasn't it Ja...With respect to the term "Theotokos", wasn't it Jaroslav Jan Pelikan who favored the translation "the one who gave birth to the one who was god"?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-84154889288908840412008-10-04T22:24:00.000-04:002008-10-04T22:24:00.000-04:00The doctrine states that the Holy Spirit guides th...The doctrine states that the Holy Spirit guides the pope and that when officially teaching to the whole church on issues of morals/faith, he will not err. Infallibility is really a very narrowly defined dogma. <BR/>I guess you have to show me where the Pope erred, since I can 'prove' that infallibility has always existed by the fact that the pope has not erred when officially teaching to the whole church on matters of faith and morals.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-19463045719013100432008-10-04T14:18:00.000-04:002008-10-04T14:18:00.000-04:00Really Diane? Prove it. And, remember that whateve...Really Diane? Prove it. And, remember that whatever you have read, I probably have read as well.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-25862442931388388182008-10-04T12:11:00.000-04:002008-10-04T12:11:00.000-04:00Fr. Hart,The promulgation of infallibility was jus...Fr. Hart,<BR/>The promulgation of infallibility was just stating what had been held in the Church since the beginning...no need to make something retroactive that already existed. Same with the promulgation of other dogmas like the Immaculate Conception.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-41838874892433964882008-10-04T08:47:00.000-04:002008-10-04T08:47:00.000-04:00Canon Hollister wrote,"Father Wells responded very...Canon Hollister wrote,<BR/><BR/>"Father Wells responded very accurately to Diane's comment,...."<BR/><BR/>I think you confused me with Fr Hart. That is quite a compliment, no kidding.<BR/><BR/>LKWAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-80238897927654996492008-10-04T00:40:00.000-04:002008-10-04T00:40:00.000-04:00My concern is that this title, quite necessary to ...<I>My concern is that this title, quite necessary to refute the Nestorian heresy, might be distorted to serve as grounds for the unacceptable notion of Co-redemptrix.</I><BR/><BR/>In a sense almost any language about God contains dangers, including the danger of taking spiritual things literally in the limited sense of the creation that we see, hear and understand. Nonetheless, about the very earthy and natural meaning of the word "mother" we must look at the direct words of Elizabeth in Luke 1:43: "And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?"Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-486797120275762592008-10-03T22:06:00.000-04:002008-10-03T22:06:00.000-04:00Diane asked:how is his present role a departure fr...Diane asked:<BR/><BR/><I>how is his present role a departure from his role in antiquity?</I><BR/><BR/>More of an evolution than a departure. The role of the Patriarch of Rome <I>as it is today</I> has almost no foundation in the ancient Church. First among equals was deformed into universal primacy, and on and on the innovations went. The idea of Papal Infallibility (or of "Peter's successor" if you prefer) became dogma only as late as 1870. How can there be a dogma retroactive?<BR/><BR/>It has evolved to the point where they even deny that the Church can fully be the Church without some subordination to this one particular bishop. Nothing like this was known to the Apostles and the Fathers of the Church.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-65565445795645323482008-10-03T22:02:00.000-04:002008-10-03T22:02:00.000-04:00John Hollister:The charism of infallibility as def...John Hollister:<BR/>The charism of infallibility as defined by the Catholic Church is not tied to popes (your definition ) or to places (patriarchates) but to the successor of Peter.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-24485198713132565582008-10-03T21:52:00.000-04:002008-10-03T21:52:00.000-04:00Fr. Hart,You didn't answer my question....I know t...Fr. Hart,<BR/>You didn't answer my question....I know the issue is not the title. Whatever you want to call him...how is his present role a departure from his role in antiquity? And when did this departure take place?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-50720394929895577272008-10-03T21:28:00.000-04:002008-10-03T21:28:00.000-04:00Father Wells responded very accurately to Diane's ...Father Wells responded very accurately to Diane's comment, "History shows we had a pope...not just a bishop of Rome...the title was there and was used."<BR/><BR/>I would only add that not only were all five of the ancient Patriarchs accorded the title "Pope", but some of them, at least, still are.<BR/><BR/>Thus the head of the Coptic Church is always referred to as "His Holiness Shenouda, Pope and Patriarch of Alexandria". So, extrapolating from Diane's argument, Pope Shenouda must be (doubtless to his own great surprise) infallible, able to convert pious opinions into binding dogma on his own say-so, and entitled to enter any diocese in the world and supercede its native Bishop.<BR/><BR/>John A. Hollister+John A. Hollisterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01325615323834517909noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-19858701327676915842008-10-03T20:00:00.000-04:002008-10-03T20:00:00.000-04:00Ed,Careful. In 1054 (or thereabouts) Alexandria a...Ed,<BR/><BR/>Careful. In 1054 (or thereabouts) Alexandria and Jerusalem said nothing; and Antioch replied effectively "a plague on both your houses," but reserved most of his ire for Constantinople for provoking a needless conflict; and he concluded that Antioch remained and would remain in communion with both Rome and Constantinople.<BR/><BR/>To trace how and when the schism between Rome and Constantinople transmitted itself to, and was accepted by, the other Eastern patriarchates, is a true labrynth, and the answer would seem to be "between 1200 and 1300," with the proviso that the four Eastern patriarchates did nor formally declare Rome out of their communion until 1484.William Tighehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16634494183165592707noreply@blogger.com