ArchivedWho was the Rock?Aieno Wrote: The only brand there is. I am not being sarcastic, that site I visited was actually a Protestant site. I can list a few hundred Protestant denominations if you like,ovbiously not off the top of my head. Aieno Wrote: You just said it doesnt matter, so why are you asking? I use multiply search engines not just one. Aieno Wrote:
I am immoral because I use condoms with my wife?, get real. And yes I have read it. Aieno Wrote: This question was also raised by a Cardinal, 'What is to be done with the Pope if he becomes a heretic?' It was answered that there has never been such a case; the Council of Bishops could depose him for heresy, for from the moment he becomes a heretic he is not the head or even a member of the Church. The Church would not be, for a moment, obliged to listen to him when he begins to teach a doctrine the Church knows to be a false doctrine, and he would cease to be Pope, being deposed by God Himself. "If the Pope, for instance, were to say that the belief in God is false, you would not be obliged to believe him, or if he were to deny the rest of the creed, 'I believe in Christ,' etc. The supposition is injurious to the Holy Father in the very idea, but serves to show you the fullness with which the subject has been considered and the ample thought given to every possibility. If he denies any dogma of the Church held by every true believer, he is no more Pope than either you Aieno or I. If the pope proclaims for the whole Church something which is harmful to the faith of her members such as advocating a heresy, then he himself becomes a heretic and thereby cuts himself from the Church. He loses his authority because a true vicar of Christ cannot propose for the whole Church that which is harmful to the Faith. With papal infallibility, a pope is also protected by a secondary infallibility the object of which are the Church's rites and disciplines thereby making it impossible for him to prescribe things for the Church which are harmful and evil. A pope may lose his position and authority tacitly if he acts contrary to his position. St. Robert Bellarmine said "Papa haereticus depositus est"--"A pope who is a heretic is deposed. The Popes: A Concise Biographical History (ed. Eric John) says: "In the case of Pope Honorius, since he was obviously dealing with a matter properly the subject of an infallible pronouncement, the problem is, whether he was speaking ex cathedra, and, if so, was he really teaching error.... He was certainly in ignorance of the true state of affairs: it is not likely that such an occasion could be then considered as the pope speaking ex cathedra. Again he was not in any sense denying the orthodox doctrine, but merely giving assent to the formula which he understood very differently from the heretic he was writing to. Whilst the case of the condemnation of Pope Honorius for heresy certainly raises important questions for the INTERPRETATION of the doctrine of papal infallibility, it hardly threatens the BASIC FORMULATION of that dogma" (page 115). Aieno Wrote: Your comments about Pope Gregory the Great (or Pope Gregory I, who reigned from 590-604) in letters to John the Faster (Bishop or Patriarch of Constantinople at the time) that are seized upon often by Evangelical Protestant apologists in an attempt to argue against the Papacy of the Catholic Church. The objection or charge made is that Pope Gregory was denying his own papal authority as visible head of the Church in rejecting the term "universal bishop." The main question that should be asked in considering what I'll call the "universal bishop" controversy is: What did Gregory the Great precisely mean by the terms "universal" and "universal bishop" in his letters to the Patriarch of Constantinople? Evangelical Protestant apologists do not stop to ask that question, nor have they done much research into Pope Gregory's actual writings which are full of his claims to papal authority and universal jurisdiction. If he really was denying his own papal authority (as asserted above by you) why would such an eminent Protestant (Anglican) scholar as J.N.D. Kelly write that Gregory I "was indefatigable...in upholding the Roman primacy, and successfully maintained Rome's appellate jurisdiction in the east....Gregory argued that St. Peter's commission [e.g. in Matthew 16:18f] made all churches, Constantinople included, subject to Rome" (The Oxford Dictionary of Popes, page 67). Was Gregory then directly contradicting himself in rejecting the title "universal bishop" ? A careful examination of his writings and his use of the term "universal bishop" answers the question: No, Pope Gregory knew that he was Pope and said so explicitly and constantly in his writings. To understand the sense in which Pope Gregory condemned the expression "universal Bishop," you must understand the sense in which John the Faster intended it. It has always been Catholic teaching that the bishops are not mere agents of the Pope, but true successors of the Apostles. The supreme authority of Peter is perpetuated in the Popes; but the power and authority of the other Apostles is perpetuated in the other bishops in the true sense of the word. The Pope is not the "only" Bishop; and, although his power is supreme, his is not the "only" power. But John the Faster, Patriarch of Constantinople, wanted to be bishop even of the dioceses of subordinate bishops, reducing them to mere agents, and making himself the universal or only real bishop. Pope Gregory condemned this intention, and wrote to John the Faster telling him that he had no right to claim to be universal bishop or "sole" bishop in his Patriarchate. Gregory was Pope, and knew that he was Pope. Far from refusing the title, he showed that he was universal Bishop by excommunicating John the Faster, over whom he could not have had such jurisdiction had he not the privilege of being universal Bishop. In his 21st Epistle Gregory writes, "As to what they say of the Church of Christ, who doubts that it is subject to the Apostolic See [i.e. Rome] ?" Peace |
🌈Pride🌈 goeth before Destruction
When 🌈Pride🌈 cometh, then cometh Shame