For Aristotle, democracy is possible only within homogeneous ethnic groups, while despots have always reigned over highly fragmented societies

[–] • 0 pt

Please recall that we are having parallel conversations. While you have admitted the primacy of Peter, I'm not sure Chiro has. And even your admission of even this much has been tenuous, since you were so sympathetic to Chiro's reduction of Peter's primacy to a mere typology.

Hey, I’m fairly certain St. Peter actually was the Bishop of Rome at some point. The fact that Chiro’s writing on this topic was some of the finest I’ve seen, doesn’t mean I agree with every point. That said, it’s really nice seeing such a well-thought-out challenge to Papal Supremacy, coming from an “outside” source, an “objective” observer, so to speak. It would never even occur to me to have attempted such a task.

As for your (and his) denial that the current papacy is somehow a violation of God's intention (whether the primacy of Peter is accepted or not) I would appreciate specifics. More than likely neither of you understand what the Catholic Church actually teaches on this point - and again, I'm not trying to be rude, but this is notoriously misunderstood by non-Catholics everywhere. It's like Archbishop Sheen said: there are millions of people who hate what they think the Catholic Church is, but far fewer who hate Her for what she actually is.

So in what ways do either of you think the current teaching of the Catholic Church on the papacy differs from Christ's intention, and on what grounds and by what authority do you object? If you are going to object to the current teaching you are going to need to cite earlier teachings from the Tradition before I take you seriously. Your own impressions won't cut it; I won't stake my salvation on your impressions or my own.

There has been more ink shed on this one subject than most others, and I simply don’t have the time to recast the whole thing, here. I’ll just copy-paste this extremely brief summary of the “Papal Problem”:

In 1302, Pope Boniface VIII issued “Unam Sanctam,” perhaps the most famous summary of papal claims made during the Middle Ages. Boniface not only demanded spiritual obedience to the Bishop of Rome as the head of the Church, but claimed authority over all secular governments. Boniface wrote, “We declare, state, define and pronounce that it is altogether necessary to salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman pontiff.” In the centuries that followed, the Popes successfully defeated every effort to limit their growing power and emerged supreme, beyond the authority of any earthly power, including an ecumenical council. The expansion of papal authority reached its climax in 1870 at the First Vatican Council, which proclaimed the doctrine of papal infallibility and anathematized, that is, cast out of the Church, all who refused to recognize papal supremacy. -Fr. John Morris, Antiochian Priest, Oct. 2007

Apparently Pope Benedict XVI in a 2007 publication admitted the possibility that salvation exists outside the Papal Church, for some reason, but that the Orthodox are defective-at-best for failing to commemorate the Bishop of Rome. And this current “pope” (who is an obvious open heretic, and thus, no Pope at all) thinks we might as well all be Hindus for all the difference it makes.

The Orthodox reject the Papal claims on principal, and have been doing so for nearly a thousand years. There’s an expansive body of literature on the subject, wherein you can find all sorts of highlights, even involving Orthodox Saints, wouldn’t you know.

Which saints, and in what ways? I'm tired of these generalities. What saints, during what time periods, said what against the papacy? What is the measure of their holiness or sanctity (and by what authority were they canonized?)? How do their alleged words on the papacy compare to the words of the saints prior to the schism? Are we forgetting the primacy of tradition when its convenient?

I’m just not going to have the time or the desire to accept this invitation, to spell out the differences between the post-Schism Orthodox and Papal Saints. Their works exist all over the place online, and in many books, if you’re interested. Thanks but no thanks - especially not in this context of arguing over Papal Supremacy.

And I am not here to score points; I am here to save souls. But this is not possible unless the Holy Spirit work through me, and those listening be receptive to grace. This has nothing to do with me, KOWA.

I’m aware of that, and thinking the same thing.

> Please recall that we are having parallel conversations. While you have admitted the primacy of Peter, I'm not sure Chiro has. And even your admission of even this much has been tenuous, since you were so sympathetic to Chiro's reduction of Peter's primacy to a mere typology. Hey, I’m fairly certain St. Peter actually *was* the Bishop of Rome at some point. The fact that Chiro’s writing on this topic was some of the finest I’ve seen, doesn’t mean I agree with every point. That said, it’s really nice seeing such a well-thought-out challenge to Papal Supremacy, coming from an “outside” source, an “objective” observer, so to speak. It would never even occur to me to have attempted such a task. > As for your (and his) denial that the current papacy is somehow a violation of God's intention (whether the primacy of Peter is accepted or not) I would appreciate specifics. More than likely neither of you understand what the Catholic Church actually teaches on this point - and again, I'm not trying to be rude, but this is notoriously misunderstood by non-Catholics everywhere. It's like Archbishop Sheen said: there are millions of people who hate what they think the Catholic Church is, but far fewer who hate Her for what she actually is. > So in what ways do either of you think the current teaching of the Catholic Church on the papacy differs from Christ's intention, and on what grounds and by what authority do you object? If you are going to object to the current teaching you are going to need to cite earlier teachings from the Tradition before I take you seriously. Your own impressions won't cut it; I won't stake my salvation on your impressions or my own. There has been more ink shed on this one subject than most others, and I simply don’t have the time to recast the whole thing, here. I’ll just copy-paste this extremely brief summary of the “Papal Problem”: *In 1302, Pope Boniface VIII issued “Unam Sanctam,” perhaps the most famous summary of papal claims made during the Middle Ages. Boniface not only demanded spiritual obedience to the Bishop of Rome as the head of the Church, but claimed authority over all secular governments. Boniface wrote, “We declare, state, define and pronounce that it is altogether necessary to salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman pontiff.” In the centuries that followed, the Popes successfully defeated every effort to limit their growing power and emerged supreme, beyond the authority of any earthly power, including an ecumenical council. The expansion of papal authority reached its climax in 1870 at the First Vatican Council, which proclaimed the doctrine of papal infallibility and anathematized, that is, cast out of the Church, all who refused to recognize papal supremacy.* -Fr. John Morris, Antiochian Priest, Oct. 2007 Apparently Pope Benedict XVI in a 2007 publication admitted the possibility that salvation exists *outside* the Papal Church, for some reason, but that the Orthodox are defective-at-best for failing to commemorate the Bishop of Rome. And this current “pope” (who is an obvious open heretic, and thus, no Pope at all) thinks we might as well all be Hindus for all the difference it makes. The Orthodox reject the Papal claims on principal, and have been doing so for nearly a thousand years. There’s an expansive body of literature on the subject, wherein you can find all sorts of highlights, even involving Orthodox Saints, wouldn’t you know. > Which saints, and in what ways? I'm tired of these generalities. What saints, during what time periods, said what against the papacy? What is the measure of their holiness or sanctity (and by what authority were they canonized?)? How do their alleged words on the papacy compare to the words of the saints prior to the schism? Are we forgetting the primacy of tradition when its convenient? I’m just not going to have the time or the desire to accept this invitation, to spell out the differences between the post-Schism Orthodox and Papal Saints. Their works exist all over the place online, and in many books, if you’re interested. Thanks but no thanks - especially not in this context of arguing over Papal Supremacy. > And I am not here to score points; I am here to save souls. But this is not possible unless the Holy Spirit work through me, and those listening be receptive to grace. This has nothing to do with me, KOWA. I’m aware of that, and thinking the same thing. @Chiro

parent
link

(post is archived)