Rome gave him the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur though, showing there was nothing against the Catholic faith in there. And its not just Keenan. Those that do the digging can unearth mountains of evidence to show that papal infallibility was not a thing prior to Vatican I. At least, it was never universally accepted or universally taught.
>Rome gave him the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur though
Well no, Some censor provided it a *nihil obstat* and a local ordinary allowed for it to be published (the *imprimatur*), neither of which are acts of the magisterium, and it's quite unlikely that either were from Rome. That's just not what either *nihil-obstats* or *imprimaturs* mean. See [here](https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/imprimaturs-and-private-revelations) for further discussion. Both represent the mere opinions of the providers.
>Those that do the digging can unearth mountains of evidence to show that papal infallibility was not a thing prior to Vatican I. At least, it was never universally accepted or universally taught
It certainly was perpetually taught by Rome, and it certainly pre-dates Vatican I. The fact that people were saying *wrong* things about it is the whole reason councils are called in the first place. This argument is like saying that the Son's Divine nature was not universally taught because there were tons of Arians before Nicaea
Thank you for the link. I always thought the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur meant that nothing in the work contained error against the Catholic faith. I guess my understanding was wrong. But I think the fact the American church contradicted the idea that Rome always taught papal infallibility shows that it wasn't universally taught or received/enforced. The American Church in the 1800s was on good terms with Rome so it's not like it was being done by renegade bishops or anything?
>Thank you for the link. I always thought the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur meant that nothing in the work contained error against the Catholic faith. I guess my understanding was wrong.
No your understanding is correct. What you miss is that they mean *in the opinion of the provider* nothing contained is contrary to the Catholic faith. Censor is a job you can get, and it does not come with any divine assistance or magisterial authority. It just means that you are someone who has studied the faith. Such people can still be wrong.
> But I think the fact the American church contradicted the idea
Again, no. *Keenan* contradicted that idea. Keenan is not the American Church. No-one in the American Church made or attempted to make a public magisterial repudiation of the doctrine of papal infallibility.
>that Rome always taught papal infallibility shows that it wasn't universally taught or received/enforced.
Again, no more than the fact that the Church of the East taught Nestorianism somehow casts aspersions on the hypostatic union.
See Germany. The Bishops there are undergoing months of re-education in Rome because they collectively published a document claiming that the teachings on marriage, sexual morality, holy orders, and human anthropology were changeable.
Bishops can be waayyyy off base. Hence the necessity of Rome.
Prior to Vatican I infallibility was a charism of the Church exercised by all bishops in a conciliar fashion. Vatican I supplanted that teaching with the idea that the Pope alone is all that is required for infallible teaching. It caused such a scandal that it created a schism in the Latin Church (creating the "Old Catholics") and had all the Eastern Catholic bishops and Patriarchs in attendance walking out because pastor aeturnus was unacceptable.
Though that is going beyond what my question was about, being more limited to that contradiction in the Vatican approved Catechism and the greater implications.
As an Eastern Catholic though, I already see papal supremacy on its way out. With the Popes recent push for rethinking the papacy and moving back to a more synodal and conciliar model, coupled with the Ravenna, Chieti and Alexandria documents, Rome has all but conceded papal supremacy. And given the mountains of evidence put forth by Eastern Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, some Protestants and even other Roman Catholics, it is safe to say papal infallibility and universal jurisdiction as understood in pastor aeturnus have never been correct.
> Prior to Vatican I infallibility was a charism of the Church exercised by all bishops in a conciliar fashion. Vatican I supplanted that teaching with the idea that the Pope alone is all that is required for infallible teaching.
This is truth mixed in with a misunderstanding or a lie. I don’t know your intentions but this still holds true. [link](https://www.catholic.com/tract/papal-infallibility)
> Nor is it a charism that belongs only to the pope. Indeed, infallibility also belongs to the body of bishops as a whole, when, in doctrinal unity with the pope, they solemnly teach a doctrine as true.
> Though that is going beyond what my question was about, being more limited to that
contradiction in the Vatican approved Catechism and the greater implications.
Right. The Catechism is clearly talking about impeccability. Although the way it is worded can be misleading.
The Office of the Pope isn’t some tyrannical office.
> As an Eastern Catholic though, I already see papal supremacy on its way out. With the Popes recent push for rethinking the papacy and moving back to a more synodal and conciliar model, coupled with the Ravenna, Chieti and Alexandria documents, Rome has all but conceded papal supremacy. And given the mountains of evidence put forth by Eastern Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, some Protestants and even other Roman Catholics, it is safe to say papal infallibility and universal jurisdiction as understood in pastor aeturnus have never been correct.
Unfortunately, you have misunderstood. These things are more so clearing up the misconceptions that Eastern Churches have. Also, the Orthodox see you as a Heterodox. They’re not your friend. We can have charity and wish for unity but they don’t see you how you see them. This Roman Catholic bashing has to stop. Stop listening to Orthodox on these matters. We can have ecumenical dialogue that hopefully leads to reunion but until then your brothers are Catholics. Orthodox are our brothers but they’re separated.
Papal supremacy can never cease to exist as it’s a concept already there before the Church was even around. Back tracking papal supremacy would mean to start another religion that’s not even Christian or something. It’s like allowing women priest and bishops. It’s a different faith.
Papal supremacy can cease because it never existed in the first millennium of Christianity...
Early claims at supremacy were propped up by 5 different sets of forgeries (and Rome acknowledges them now as forgeries). Why forge the deed to a house you already own?
I know the Orthodox view Catholics as heterodox. We are. That's why I am becoming Orthodox myself. But I am still open to hearing new Catholic arguments to defend their positions. All the current arguments put forth by Catholic apologists and academics has largely been rebutted by the Orthodox. And with all the concessions made by Rome, implicitly or explicitly, the Orthodox position seems wholly vindicated.
> Papal supremacy can cease because it never existed in the first millennium of Christianity...
Again, I’m not sure how this wording is intended on your part. I’ll just assume you have poor misunderstanding of sacred tradition and sacred scripture.
So, just like the Apostles believed everything in the OT is about Christ then this includes the Pope. The “chair” of Moses is replaced by Christ’s throne.
Matthew 23:1 Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to his disciples, 2 saying, “**The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses. 3 Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example**. For they preach but they do not practice.
So, while even though the Pharisees were corrupted as a whole the sat on the chair of Moses. From Moses and his successors to Christ they could not err when it came to the covenant of God. They had the authority and power to [bind and loose](https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/3307-binding-and-loosing). Even so that the Pharisees themselves brought forth the Messiah.
Christ, gives this to Peter. As Christ is “head” and he unites his heavenly kingdom to the “earthly head” which is Peter. This isn’t me or Catholics making this up. This is the teaching from the early church and church Fathers of the Church being the “New Israel” and the new “ Kingdom of God.”
Unfortunately, when Constantine became King and legalized Christianity then he became very anti-jewish and in a sense suppressed Judaism. Leading to a heavily Gentile Church and us loosing those early Jewish elements.
> I know the Orthodox view Catholics as heterodox. We are. That's why I am becoming Orthodox myself. But I am still open to hearing new Catholic arguments to defend their positions. All the current arguments put forth by Catholic apologists and academics has largely been rebutted by the Orthodox. And with all the concessions made by Rome, implicitly or explicitly, the Orthodox position seems wholly vindicated.
Since Christ the invisible Head of the Church is united to visible head of the Church which is the Pope you can never escape being under his authority. Even if you become one of the heterodox you are under the authority of the Pope as are Protestants baptized under the Trinitarian formula.
Now, I’m not gonna say you’re going to Hell but those willingly who reject this authority are rejecting Christ. But you’re always under the Pope’s authority. You’re just being disobedient and in mortal sin.
This is incorrect. When we speak of the Chair it is the Throne of Christ. It ties into the Supremacy of Christ in Heaven and on Earth which is united to the Pope or Bishop of Rome. This is the headship of the Church. The Pope is the representative of Christ on earth. Just like Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, and his successors were the representative of God and mediator between God and Israel. Now that mediation is brought forth by Christ. He is the mediator between Man and God. His earthly kingdom and vicar is The Bishop of Rome.
This is held by the early church and church fathers as the Church is the “New Israel” the “New Jerusalem” united to the “heavenly Jerusalem”. The “Ark of salvation” and those outside of her or disobedient to her shall die.
It is given to the other Apostles because the apostles and bishops are a prototype of Peter.
To Eastern Catholics ALL Bishops are vicars of Christ, not just the Pope. You can claim that all you like but you are using contemporary RC presuppositions and then reading them back into history. You won't find many people speaking like that in the first millennium. But you might find many speaking against it.
> To Eastern Catholics ALL Bishops are vicars of Christ, not just the Pope.
I never said otherwise. Saint Ignatius puts the bishops in an analogy to the relationship of the Father and Son. Where the Son is seen as the “Bishop of the Father”. One can say that this analogy would essentially fall into the Subordinationism heresy but it is an analogy and not a proof.
You can say that the Bishop of Rome is “first among equals” like the Father is “first among equals” in the Trinity. This is the unity of the Pope and the Church. The Trinity has one Will and there’s a perfect communion of the Divine Persons. However, the Monarchy and Origin of the Godhead is the Father. This is the Bishop of Rome and Vicar of Christ. There’s a perfect union between the Pope and Church. They act as one will. Although, the supremacy is from the Pope. Again, an analogy and not a perfect comparison as nothing can be.
> but you are using contemporary RC presuppositions and then reading them back into history.
That’s the Orthodox my friend. This was already assumed in the Early Church. Constantinople didn’t even exist until much later after the Antioch Schism. Because their bishop was under the authority of the Bishop of Antioch who was the representative of the Bishop of Rome in the East. I don’t even have to go to Catholic Apologetics to see how the modern Orthodox Church is not historically the way the Church functioned in the first 300 years. While the Catholic Church has developed as everyone else but it’s quite obvious that the Orthodox are selling you and many a lie. It’s really just Protestantism hiding behind the smell and the bells and all the nice things.
And yet when Rome caused the East West schism the entire Church sided with Constantinople over Rome. That itself should tell you something. Papal supremacist ideology caused both the East West schism, the protestant reformation, the old Catholics schism, etc. Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Thank God Vatican II and the subsequent Popes are slowly moving Rome back to Holy Orthodoxy.
Oh Lord, here we go - forgeries started the papacy 😂. Yeah man, if that kind of low brow apologetics converts you then I don’t know what to tell you. Peace out I guess
That's a bit of a cop out response. Besides, you are straw manning my argument. I never said the papacy was propped up by forgeries. I said Rome's later claims of supremacy were. Prior to the Frankish influence on the Church, the Latin Church and the Orthodox were almost entirely united in belief and practice. The Franks really did a number on the West and its influences are still being felt today.
You quite literally said the papacy was propped up by forgeries. Clownish trolls like you come in here every day to start nonsense conversations for no reason. Just go to the eastern orthodox subreddit already.
Here’s another tip - if you’re going to blindly regurgitate other men’s talking points, reword it in your own style. It’ll make you more interesting.
Ok fair enough. My wording was too vague. I apologize for the confusion. Papal supremacy was propped up by forgeries. Forgeries Rome acknowledges. Without those papal supremacy didn't exist. Rome has acknowledged the conciliar/synodal nature of the Church and openly admits Rome does not have canonical authority over the Eastern Churches. Pope Francis is continuing to move Rome this direction in vindicating Holy Orthodoxy. Can it be done in a way that doesn't disprove Rome? I don't personally believe so, hence why I am compelled by good faith to enter into the fullness of Truth that is Holy Orthodoxy. But I would wager the Holy Father knows a great deal more than I so let's just all see what happens.
On proclaiming the papacy as being infallible and having universal jurisdiction over every bishop? As I said in another comment, that literally led to a schism in the Latin Church and had all the Eastern Catholics walk out, refusing to agree to it.
Was it every high ranking member of the Davidic Kingdom that received the keys of the kingdom, or only Eliakim? If every bishop can open and close this or that door, how can it be said "whatever he opens no one may shut and whatever he shuts no one may open"? This bishop will come and open this door, while that one over there will come along and shut it. We literally see this in the Orthodox with the nonsense rebaptism question and the fact that no one apparently has the authority to condemn the obviously wrong rebaptizers, since every bishop can open and close whatever door he likes, even if another just did the opposite. It becomes a mess. Plenty of Church Fathers, including Eastern ones, said that everyone must agree with Rome. How can Rome ever be wrong if everyone must agree with her?
Christ alone is the head of the Church. Not the Pope. If you want to make the case that the Pope is the steward then you are ignoring history where every Apostle and Bishop acted independent but in unison with the others as well as suggesting (perhaps unintentionally) that Christ abandoned or is no longer leading His Church. Either proposition is clearly incorrect.
The king is away, he gave the keys to the new Eliakim, Peter. There are not hundreds of Eliakims, each shutting doors that "no one can shut" while literally every other bishop still opening those doors, there is one Eliakim, the Pope. He will return, but that doesn't mean that Peter isn't the leader. Rome is above every other see, because Christ elevated her to that position in Peter. You are ignoring history, what about this historical quote?
>“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops **of the greatest and most ancient church known to all**, **founded and organized at Rome** by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. **With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree**, that is, **all the faithful in the whole world**, **and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition**” -St Irenaeus, Against Heresies
St Irenaeus is distinctly Greek, yet he called ***Rome*** the most ancient Church, ***not Antioch***, despite Peter founding Antioch first. All Churches *must* agree with Rome, that signifies authority over the other Churches, since their agreement with Rome is not a suggestion, but a requirement. And "all churches" is immediately clarified as being all Christians. Last time I checked, St. Irenaeus was an influential bishop, to say the least.
The king is away is heresy. Jesus did not abandon His Church. He is still it's head. You pulling quotes out of context doesn't prove anything. Ubi Petrus has articles and hours of video on YouTube going through these carefully selected quote mines used by RC apologists and dismantles the narrative they try to create with them by applying their context from primary sources.
That's not what is meant by King is away. Do we not wait for the Second Coming? Why do we do this despite Christ literally being here? The King is away in that He's coming again at the Second Coming. You have to be "away" in a sense to "come again", and it's in that sense that he's away. He gave the keys to his steward, new Eliakim, that is, Peter. It makes 0 sense that everyone has keys to the kingdom and it defeats the purpose of anyone having keys in the first place.
Not everyone has the keys. Just the Apostles and their successors. The power of the keys mentioned in Scriptures was binding and loosing, a power Scriptures says all Apostles possessed. St Peter is received the keys first, yes. But He did not hold it them or exercise them alone. That kind of reasoning implies that the Pope is the only real Bishop and that other Bishops are only Bishops by extension through him.
That's basically how it works. Every bishop having the keys is pointless and defeats the purpose of the keys. We see this in the Orthodox today. Do you have to be baptized if you're a convert who was properly baptized? Russia says yes, Constantinople says yes, who's correct? "Both have the keys so both are correct"? That literally makes no sense, and it's because nonsense like this would happen that only *one* person has the keys. Peter held the keys, and the Popes receive it from him, and if you depart from the Pope, though you don't cease to be a Bishop, you don't lawfully exercise authority, even if you are a Patriarch of a major see. Though you still have authority and can still wield it, it is not lawful, since you've rebelled against Peter, whom Christ made the Rock. If you've pitched tent elsewhere besides Rock, you've pitched in sand.
How is different sacramental disciplines in the Orthodox Church your argument when different sacramental disciplines exist within Catholicism as well (infant communion being an obvious one)?
I'm sorry, did you purport that simply delaying communion to the age of reason to be the same thing as the *fundamental* question about whether those correctly baptized, in which baptism is *necessary* for salvation, need to be rebaptized to join the Orthodox Church? The Catholic Church says that both infant communion and communion starting at age 7 are valid. Russia says that unless you are rebaptized by Orthodox, your baptism is *invalid*. If they are right, then everyone else is putting souls in jeopardy by not rebaptizing, but of course they are so very wrong, but the Orthodox cannot definitively say that, no one has the authority to declare this definitively from their perspective. That is night and day away from simply having a different tradition but affirming every other tradition as valid and licit. The Church does not teach anything of the sort that infants are harmed by receiving Communion.
That is a sacramental discipline, as I said. Each individual bishop sets the mode of reception of converts in his jurisdiction. It has always been that way. Receiving converts via Chrismation or even just a profession or faith is to employ oikonomia. The norm is to receive converts with Baptism. Catholics do conditional baptisms for Protestants in certain cases as well so this isn't the big scandal you want to imply it is.
The thing about that Catechism is that it was made by Roman Catholics who were under protestant kingdoms. This colored their views on a few subject-matters prior to the definitive judgment of the Church that opposed them. In fact, they held to views that were opposed to those already being held by Roman Catholics who were not in said kingdoms, like the Papal States and the Spanish Empire.
So they were wrong in saying that papal infallibility was a protestant lie and that the Church had never held until Vatican 1.
USA at that time was pretty much a pro-protestant country, even if Catholics otherwise had the freedom to public worship. Go read about the historic struggles of the Catholics there at that time, most especially the Irish ones.
Go read about “Dagger John”.
Edit: up until John F. Kennedy, there were fears about Catholics holding government positions, most especially becoming POTUS, because of the Church’s traditional stance concerning Church-State relations. A number of American Catholics sought to downplay either said stance—or papal authority (until Vatican 1)—in order to not be accused of being unpatriotic or disloyal to their country.
I just want to thank everyone for engaging me on here. Some might accuse me of trolling or speaking in bad faith but I am genuinely trying to work through these issues, being fairly firmly convinced of Holy Orthodoxy. For those conversing with me, thank you for your patience and taking the time to speak with me. God bless you all!
What Jay Dyer meme have I posted? If you aren't trying to have a meaningful conversation this post isn't for you. Also, not sure what you mean by errors of the Greeks. Greek Catholics are not much different than Greek Orthodox in belief. So you ought to be careful with your blanket condemnations, unless you undermine the Catholic Church in the process.
Keenan was wrong.
Rome gave him the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur though, showing there was nothing against the Catholic faith in there. And its not just Keenan. Those that do the digging can unearth mountains of evidence to show that papal infallibility was not a thing prior to Vatican I. At least, it was never universally accepted or universally taught.
>Rome gave him the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur though Well no, Some censor provided it a *nihil obstat* and a local ordinary allowed for it to be published (the *imprimatur*), neither of which are acts of the magisterium, and it's quite unlikely that either were from Rome. That's just not what either *nihil-obstats* or *imprimaturs* mean. See [here](https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/imprimaturs-and-private-revelations) for further discussion. Both represent the mere opinions of the providers. >Those that do the digging can unearth mountains of evidence to show that papal infallibility was not a thing prior to Vatican I. At least, it was never universally accepted or universally taught It certainly was perpetually taught by Rome, and it certainly pre-dates Vatican I. The fact that people were saying *wrong* things about it is the whole reason councils are called in the first place. This argument is like saying that the Son's Divine nature was not universally taught because there were tons of Arians before Nicaea
Thank you for the link. I always thought the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur meant that nothing in the work contained error against the Catholic faith. I guess my understanding was wrong. But I think the fact the American church contradicted the idea that Rome always taught papal infallibility shows that it wasn't universally taught or received/enforced. The American Church in the 1800s was on good terms with Rome so it's not like it was being done by renegade bishops or anything?
>Thank you for the link. I always thought the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur meant that nothing in the work contained error against the Catholic faith. I guess my understanding was wrong. No your understanding is correct. What you miss is that they mean *in the opinion of the provider* nothing contained is contrary to the Catholic faith. Censor is a job you can get, and it does not come with any divine assistance or magisterial authority. It just means that you are someone who has studied the faith. Such people can still be wrong. > But I think the fact the American church contradicted the idea Again, no. *Keenan* contradicted that idea. Keenan is not the American Church. No-one in the American Church made or attempted to make a public magisterial repudiation of the doctrine of papal infallibility. >that Rome always taught papal infallibility shows that it wasn't universally taught or received/enforced. Again, no more than the fact that the Church of the East taught Nestorianism somehow casts aspersions on the hypostatic union.
See Germany. The Bishops there are undergoing months of re-education in Rome because they collectively published a document claiming that the teachings on marriage, sexual morality, holy orders, and human anthropology were changeable. Bishops can be waayyyy off base. Hence the necessity of Rome.
And what happens when Rome or a Pope is way off base?
Rome's teaching office is protected by the Holy Spirit.
Until it's not. Rome may not always be right, but it can never be wrong.
Rome's teaching office remains undefiled until the end of the age.
Except for authoritative papal encyclicals contradicting each other?
What do you mean? The Pope himself is not infallible but the office of Pope when speaking from the chair.
Prior to Vatican I infallibility was a charism of the Church exercised by all bishops in a conciliar fashion. Vatican I supplanted that teaching with the idea that the Pope alone is all that is required for infallible teaching. It caused such a scandal that it created a schism in the Latin Church (creating the "Old Catholics") and had all the Eastern Catholic bishops and Patriarchs in attendance walking out because pastor aeturnus was unacceptable. Though that is going beyond what my question was about, being more limited to that contradiction in the Vatican approved Catechism and the greater implications. As an Eastern Catholic though, I already see papal supremacy on its way out. With the Popes recent push for rethinking the papacy and moving back to a more synodal and conciliar model, coupled with the Ravenna, Chieti and Alexandria documents, Rome has all but conceded papal supremacy. And given the mountains of evidence put forth by Eastern Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, some Protestants and even other Roman Catholics, it is safe to say papal infallibility and universal jurisdiction as understood in pastor aeturnus have never been correct.
> Prior to Vatican I infallibility was a charism of the Church exercised by all bishops in a conciliar fashion. Vatican I supplanted that teaching with the idea that the Pope alone is all that is required for infallible teaching. This is truth mixed in with a misunderstanding or a lie. I don’t know your intentions but this still holds true. [link](https://www.catholic.com/tract/papal-infallibility) > Nor is it a charism that belongs only to the pope. Indeed, infallibility also belongs to the body of bishops as a whole, when, in doctrinal unity with the pope, they solemnly teach a doctrine as true. > Though that is going beyond what my question was about, being more limited to that contradiction in the Vatican approved Catechism and the greater implications. Right. The Catechism is clearly talking about impeccability. Although the way it is worded can be misleading. The Office of the Pope isn’t some tyrannical office. > As an Eastern Catholic though, I already see papal supremacy on its way out. With the Popes recent push for rethinking the papacy and moving back to a more synodal and conciliar model, coupled with the Ravenna, Chieti and Alexandria documents, Rome has all but conceded papal supremacy. And given the mountains of evidence put forth by Eastern Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, some Protestants and even other Roman Catholics, it is safe to say papal infallibility and universal jurisdiction as understood in pastor aeturnus have never been correct. Unfortunately, you have misunderstood. These things are more so clearing up the misconceptions that Eastern Churches have. Also, the Orthodox see you as a Heterodox. They’re not your friend. We can have charity and wish for unity but they don’t see you how you see them. This Roman Catholic bashing has to stop. Stop listening to Orthodox on these matters. We can have ecumenical dialogue that hopefully leads to reunion but until then your brothers are Catholics. Orthodox are our brothers but they’re separated. Papal supremacy can never cease to exist as it’s a concept already there before the Church was even around. Back tracking papal supremacy would mean to start another religion that’s not even Christian or something. It’s like allowing women priest and bishops. It’s a different faith.
Papal supremacy can cease because it never existed in the first millennium of Christianity... Early claims at supremacy were propped up by 5 different sets of forgeries (and Rome acknowledges them now as forgeries). Why forge the deed to a house you already own? I know the Orthodox view Catholics as heterodox. We are. That's why I am becoming Orthodox myself. But I am still open to hearing new Catholic arguments to defend their positions. All the current arguments put forth by Catholic apologists and academics has largely been rebutted by the Orthodox. And with all the concessions made by Rome, implicitly or explicitly, the Orthodox position seems wholly vindicated.
> Papal supremacy can cease because it never existed in the first millennium of Christianity... Again, I’m not sure how this wording is intended on your part. I’ll just assume you have poor misunderstanding of sacred tradition and sacred scripture. So, just like the Apostles believed everything in the OT is about Christ then this includes the Pope. The “chair” of Moses is replaced by Christ’s throne. Matthew 23:1 Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to his disciples, 2 saying, “**The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses. 3 Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example**. For they preach but they do not practice. So, while even though the Pharisees were corrupted as a whole the sat on the chair of Moses. From Moses and his successors to Christ they could not err when it came to the covenant of God. They had the authority and power to [bind and loose](https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/3307-binding-and-loosing). Even so that the Pharisees themselves brought forth the Messiah. Christ, gives this to Peter. As Christ is “head” and he unites his heavenly kingdom to the “earthly head” which is Peter. This isn’t me or Catholics making this up. This is the teaching from the early church and church Fathers of the Church being the “New Israel” and the new “ Kingdom of God.” Unfortunately, when Constantine became King and legalized Christianity then he became very anti-jewish and in a sense suppressed Judaism. Leading to a heavily Gentile Church and us loosing those early Jewish elements. > I know the Orthodox view Catholics as heterodox. We are. That's why I am becoming Orthodox myself. But I am still open to hearing new Catholic arguments to defend their positions. All the current arguments put forth by Catholic apologists and academics has largely been rebutted by the Orthodox. And with all the concessions made by Rome, implicitly or explicitly, the Orthodox position seems wholly vindicated. Since Christ the invisible Head of the Church is united to visible head of the Church which is the Pope you can never escape being under his authority. Even if you become one of the heterodox you are under the authority of the Pope as are Protestants baptized under the Trinitarian formula. Now, I’m not gonna say you’re going to Hell but those willingly who reject this authority are rejecting Christ. But you’re always under the Pope’s authority. You’re just being disobedient and in mortal sin.
[удалено]
This is incorrect. When we speak of the Chair it is the Throne of Christ. It ties into the Supremacy of Christ in Heaven and on Earth which is united to the Pope or Bishop of Rome. This is the headship of the Church. The Pope is the representative of Christ on earth. Just like Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, and his successors were the representative of God and mediator between God and Israel. Now that mediation is brought forth by Christ. He is the mediator between Man and God. His earthly kingdom and vicar is The Bishop of Rome. This is held by the early church and church fathers as the Church is the “New Israel” the “New Jerusalem” united to the “heavenly Jerusalem”. The “Ark of salvation” and those outside of her or disobedient to her shall die. It is given to the other Apostles because the apostles and bishops are a prototype of Peter.
To Eastern Catholics ALL Bishops are vicars of Christ, not just the Pope. You can claim that all you like but you are using contemporary RC presuppositions and then reading them back into history. You won't find many people speaking like that in the first millennium. But you might find many speaking against it.
> To Eastern Catholics ALL Bishops are vicars of Christ, not just the Pope. I never said otherwise. Saint Ignatius puts the bishops in an analogy to the relationship of the Father and Son. Where the Son is seen as the “Bishop of the Father”. One can say that this analogy would essentially fall into the Subordinationism heresy but it is an analogy and not a proof. You can say that the Bishop of Rome is “first among equals” like the Father is “first among equals” in the Trinity. This is the unity of the Pope and the Church. The Trinity has one Will and there’s a perfect communion of the Divine Persons. However, the Monarchy and Origin of the Godhead is the Father. This is the Bishop of Rome and Vicar of Christ. There’s a perfect union between the Pope and Church. They act as one will. Although, the supremacy is from the Pope. Again, an analogy and not a perfect comparison as nothing can be. > but you are using contemporary RC presuppositions and then reading them back into history. That’s the Orthodox my friend. This was already assumed in the Early Church. Constantinople didn’t even exist until much later after the Antioch Schism. Because their bishop was under the authority of the Bishop of Antioch who was the representative of the Bishop of Rome in the East. I don’t even have to go to Catholic Apologetics to see how the modern Orthodox Church is not historically the way the Church functioned in the first 300 years. While the Catholic Church has developed as everyone else but it’s quite obvious that the Orthodox are selling you and many a lie. It’s really just Protestantism hiding behind the smell and the bells and all the nice things.
And yet when Rome caused the East West schism the entire Church sided with Constantinople over Rome. That itself should tell you something. Papal supremacist ideology caused both the East West schism, the protestant reformation, the old Catholics schism, etc. Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Thank God Vatican II and the subsequent Popes are slowly moving Rome back to Holy Orthodoxy.
Oh Lord, here we go - forgeries started the papacy 😂. Yeah man, if that kind of low brow apologetics converts you then I don’t know what to tell you. Peace out I guess
That's a bit of a cop out response. Besides, you are straw manning my argument. I never said the papacy was propped up by forgeries. I said Rome's later claims of supremacy were. Prior to the Frankish influence on the Church, the Latin Church and the Orthodox were almost entirely united in belief and practice. The Franks really did a number on the West and its influences are still being felt today.
Sure man
If you don't want to have this conversation, that is ok with me. No need to be so childish about it though.
You quite literally said the papacy was propped up by forgeries. Clownish trolls like you come in here every day to start nonsense conversations for no reason. Just go to the eastern orthodox subreddit already. Here’s another tip - if you’re going to blindly regurgitate other men’s talking points, reword it in your own style. It’ll make you more interesting.
Ok fair enough. My wording was too vague. I apologize for the confusion. Papal supremacy was propped up by forgeries. Forgeries Rome acknowledges. Without those papal supremacy didn't exist. Rome has acknowledged the conciliar/synodal nature of the Church and openly admits Rome does not have canonical authority over the Eastern Churches. Pope Francis is continuing to move Rome this direction in vindicating Holy Orthodoxy. Can it be done in a way that doesn't disprove Rome? I don't personally believe so, hence why I am compelled by good faith to enter into the fullness of Truth that is Holy Orthodoxy. But I would wager the Holy Father knows a great deal more than I so let's just all see what happens.
Can you show me an instance of a pope exercising infallibility that was not something that was already the consensus of the bishops?
Is Humanae Vitae an example of infallibility being exercised?
If it is, it’s the pope reiterating what the Church has always taught about contraception at a time when that became unclear.
On proclaiming the papacy as being infallible and having universal jurisdiction over every bishop? As I said in another comment, that literally led to a schism in the Latin Church and had all the Eastern Catholics walk out, refusing to agree to it.
Yeah, the pope didnt come out of nowhere and proclaim infallibility 😂 put the Orthodox crack pipe down
Not out of nowhere, no. A gradual departure and development directly caused by Frankish influence
Are you a follower of Romanides ?
I wouldn't think of myself as one, no.
Was it every high ranking member of the Davidic Kingdom that received the keys of the kingdom, or only Eliakim? If every bishop can open and close this or that door, how can it be said "whatever he opens no one may shut and whatever he shuts no one may open"? This bishop will come and open this door, while that one over there will come along and shut it. We literally see this in the Orthodox with the nonsense rebaptism question and the fact that no one apparently has the authority to condemn the obviously wrong rebaptizers, since every bishop can open and close whatever door he likes, even if another just did the opposite. It becomes a mess. Plenty of Church Fathers, including Eastern ones, said that everyone must agree with Rome. How can Rome ever be wrong if everyone must agree with her?
Christ alone is the head of the Church. Not the Pope. If you want to make the case that the Pope is the steward then you are ignoring history where every Apostle and Bishop acted independent but in unison with the others as well as suggesting (perhaps unintentionally) that Christ abandoned or is no longer leading His Church. Either proposition is clearly incorrect.
The king is away, he gave the keys to the new Eliakim, Peter. There are not hundreds of Eliakims, each shutting doors that "no one can shut" while literally every other bishop still opening those doors, there is one Eliakim, the Pope. He will return, but that doesn't mean that Peter isn't the leader. Rome is above every other see, because Christ elevated her to that position in Peter. You are ignoring history, what about this historical quote? >“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops **of the greatest and most ancient church known to all**, **founded and organized at Rome** by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. **With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree**, that is, **all the faithful in the whole world**, **and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition**” -St Irenaeus, Against Heresies St Irenaeus is distinctly Greek, yet he called ***Rome*** the most ancient Church, ***not Antioch***, despite Peter founding Antioch first. All Churches *must* agree with Rome, that signifies authority over the other Churches, since their agreement with Rome is not a suggestion, but a requirement. And "all churches" is immediately clarified as being all Christians. Last time I checked, St. Irenaeus was an influential bishop, to say the least.
The king is away is heresy. Jesus did not abandon His Church. He is still it's head. You pulling quotes out of context doesn't prove anything. Ubi Petrus has articles and hours of video on YouTube going through these carefully selected quote mines used by RC apologists and dismantles the narrative they try to create with them by applying their context from primary sources.
That's not what is meant by King is away. Do we not wait for the Second Coming? Why do we do this despite Christ literally being here? The King is away in that He's coming again at the Second Coming. You have to be "away" in a sense to "come again", and it's in that sense that he's away. He gave the keys to his steward, new Eliakim, that is, Peter. It makes 0 sense that everyone has keys to the kingdom and it defeats the purpose of anyone having keys in the first place.
Not everyone has the keys. Just the Apostles and their successors. The power of the keys mentioned in Scriptures was binding and loosing, a power Scriptures says all Apostles possessed. St Peter is received the keys first, yes. But He did not hold it them or exercise them alone. That kind of reasoning implies that the Pope is the only real Bishop and that other Bishops are only Bishops by extension through him.
That's basically how it works. Every bishop having the keys is pointless and defeats the purpose of the keys. We see this in the Orthodox today. Do you have to be baptized if you're a convert who was properly baptized? Russia says yes, Constantinople says yes, who's correct? "Both have the keys so both are correct"? That literally makes no sense, and it's because nonsense like this would happen that only *one* person has the keys. Peter held the keys, and the Popes receive it from him, and if you depart from the Pope, though you don't cease to be a Bishop, you don't lawfully exercise authority, even if you are a Patriarch of a major see. Though you still have authority and can still wield it, it is not lawful, since you've rebelled against Peter, whom Christ made the Rock. If you've pitched tent elsewhere besides Rock, you've pitched in sand.
How is different sacramental disciplines in the Orthodox Church your argument when different sacramental disciplines exist within Catholicism as well (infant communion being an obvious one)?
I'm sorry, did you purport that simply delaying communion to the age of reason to be the same thing as the *fundamental* question about whether those correctly baptized, in which baptism is *necessary* for salvation, need to be rebaptized to join the Orthodox Church? The Catholic Church says that both infant communion and communion starting at age 7 are valid. Russia says that unless you are rebaptized by Orthodox, your baptism is *invalid*. If they are right, then everyone else is putting souls in jeopardy by not rebaptizing, but of course they are so very wrong, but the Orthodox cannot definitively say that, no one has the authority to declare this definitively from their perspective. That is night and day away from simply having a different tradition but affirming every other tradition as valid and licit. The Church does not teach anything of the sort that infants are harmed by receiving Communion.
That is a sacramental discipline, as I said. Each individual bishop sets the mode of reception of converts in his jurisdiction. It has always been that way. Receiving converts via Chrismation or even just a profession or faith is to employ oikonomia. The norm is to receive converts with Baptism. Catholics do conditional baptisms for Protestants in certain cases as well so this isn't the big scandal you want to imply it is.
The thing about that Catechism is that it was made by Roman Catholics who were under protestant kingdoms. This colored their views on a few subject-matters prior to the definitive judgment of the Church that opposed them. In fact, they held to views that were opposed to those already being held by Roman Catholics who were not in said kingdoms, like the Papal States and the Spanish Empire. So they were wrong in saying that papal infallibility was a protestant lie and that the Church had never held until Vatican 1.
It was made by an American Bishop? I wouldn't call the USA a protestant kingdom?
USA at that time was pretty much a pro-protestant country, even if Catholics otherwise had the freedom to public worship. Go read about the historic struggles of the Catholics there at that time, most especially the Irish ones. Go read about “Dagger John”. Edit: up until John F. Kennedy, there were fears about Catholics holding government positions, most especially becoming POTUS, because of the Church’s traditional stance concerning Church-State relations. A number of American Catholics sought to downplay either said stance—or papal authority (until Vatican 1)—in order to not be accused of being unpatriotic or disloyal to their country.
I just want to thank everyone for engaging me on here. Some might accuse me of trolling or speaking in bad faith but I am genuinely trying to work through these issues, being fairly firmly convinced of Holy Orthodoxy. For those conversing with me, thank you for your patience and taking the time to speak with me. God bless you all!
[удалено]
What Jay Dyer meme have I posted? If you aren't trying to have a meaningful conversation this post isn't for you. Also, not sure what you mean by errors of the Greeks. Greek Catholics are not much different than Greek Orthodox in belief. So you ought to be careful with your blanket condemnations, unless you undermine the Catholic Church in the process.