what year was Papacy established

Meena_Ameen

hey everyone, i wanted to know what year the catholics made up the new doctrine of infallibility of the Pope.. and also if anyone has any books or sermons on the catholics believing that Jesus said that he would build his church on Peter being the rock. And how they believe that there church is the church Jesus spoke of.

clay

I think most secular historians and anti-Catholic 'Christians' see Pope Leo to be the first to exert this sort of authority. Indeed, it was his delegates overzealousness to Rome and their deceit in the Fourth "Ecumenical" council that began the schism that would prevail to now (though there has always times of relative peace and genuine efforts between our communions).

Severus

The doctrine of 'Papal Infallibility' was formally defined by Vatican I in the year 1870. However, the mindset existed before, with it being recorded earliest 256 AD.

source: http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0202sbs.asp

Meena_Ameen

[quote author=Severus link=topic=6517.msg86253#msg86253 date=1209307675]
The doctrine of 'Papal Infallibility' was formally defined by Vatican I in the year 1870. However, the mindset existed before, with it being recorded earliest 256 AD.

source: http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0202sbs.asp



i read most of this... so does this mean that the orthodox church is wrong in not believe the infallibility of the Pope? What exactly do we believe concerning how to determine is a doctrine is true?

Severus

Of course we are not wrong. To say that a Pope is infallible is to deify him. He is still a human, and as such, is prone to mistakes.

Meena_Ameen

I know that a pope cannot be infallible, but what i noticed many catholics argue that if the pope was not infallible than who is to say which doctrines are correct, and they say Jesus promised to keep the church in the right path and the pope is the one who like the apostles is correct in every doctrine he teaches. So How do WE (orthodox)
define true doctrine?

Severus

Well, the whole Holy Synod is called, as well as the other Synods of the Oriental Orthodox Churches, in the case that a new doctrine is required. Then, we would have the opinion of all of the Bishops, Metropolitans, and other Patriarchs of the Oriental Orthodox Churches. Someone correct me if I am wrong, but as far as I am aware we are past making new doctrines and focus on those of the the early Church Fathers, with excellent commentary and guidance provided by H.H. Pope Shenouda III.

Meena_Ameen

i must say that way of determining a true doctrine makess wayyy more sense than the opinion of 1 man. It also compliments what our Lord Said about how when 2 or more are gathered in his name, there he is in the midst of them.

clay

We never make a doctrine- we only define it.Thank God for those who "rightly defined the word of truth".

ilovesaintmark

Dear Clay and Severus,

I read your points, and I beg difference with the Catholic website trying to slant the infallability issue to the mid-third century.  There have been plenty of commentary on the fact that the Catholic Church has used a great deal of latitude in translating ancient manuscripts to try to appeal for the Primacy of the See of Rome, and for that matter interpretation even of the famous (incorrectly slanted) verses from the Gospels relating to St. Peter's declaration.

I think one of the evolutionary aspects is extending the concept of primacy, which they extend from the imperial importance of the city of Rome, and thereafter taking that concept of primacy to the destructive and reprehensible extent of infallibility.

It is naturally--nonsense!

Some Catholics try to temper these points by mentioning that the Roman Pontiff speaks "ex cathedra" and it is really after consultation with the bishops.  This is trying to emulate our Orthodox model of Episcopal declaration from the confines of a Holy Synod on a local level and Ecumenical Council on a Universal Level.

You have to evaluate the source for claims of authority, authenticity, and validity.

How would one characterize the act of Pope John Paul II when he bowed and kissed the Koran in veneration in the mosque in Constantinople?  It constitutes heresy in my book, and this is within the same self-condemning doctrine of Papal Infallibility.  Let us, for argument sake, accept this notion.  If he is truly infallible, then by showing veneration to a book that disavows Our Lord's Divinity, His Salvific Act, then the Roman Catholic Church has made a declaration against the mainstay of Christian Existence and is in effect heretical.  If he is infallible, how could he have made such a theological mistake?  Was he fully in command of his faculties when doing something so stupid?  If a Roman Pontiff has lost his mental faculties due to the frailty of his human body and existence, can he still be infallible?

In regard to the reference to Chalcedon, I believe the more correct term for the Roman presence was "legates".  They carried forward with the Imperial Roman precedence of the "legate" and the "legate's baton".  They were mere priests and not bishops and this in fact was an insult to all of the episcopate that present at that council.  Leo was attempting to carry forward with Caesar-system for ecclesiastical administration.

I believe the movements of the Roman Catholic Church over the years, which I have annunciated several times previous, is not to be a Church body, but rather, to be an extension of the Roman Empire.

Too bad--the Roman Empire does not exist.  When are they going to wake up to that reality.

LifeinChrist

The only infallible person is God, unless anyone is God, they do not fall under the infallible category.

Severus

[quote author=Hisservant link=topic=6517.msg86409#msg86409 date=1209522759]
The only infallible person is God, unless anyone is God, they do not fall under the infallible category.


Yep, therefore, they deify their Pope, which is heresy.

coptic pharoah

i have a question....  we say that our Pope sits on the Chair of St. Mark

what is wormg when they say that their Pope sits on the Chair of St. Peter?... or is it just because they beleive that St. Peter was the head of the Apostols?

ilovesaintmark

Coptic Pharaoh,

If you are Roman Catholic, it is correct to say so.

Posted by: coptic pharaoh 
Insert Quote
i have a question....  we say that our Pope sits on the Chair of St. Mark

what is wormg when they say that their Pope sits on the Chair of St. Peter?... or is it just because they beleive that St. Peter was the head of the Apostols?

 
Technically for all other jurisdictions, this statement is done figuratively and not absolutely when making that statement.

According to Eastern and Orthodox Traditions, St. Peter, was the first bishop of the Church of Antioch; having ministered in those regions for approximately twenty years.  In regard to his presence in Rome, it is usually a hyperbolized and inflated issue by the Roman Catholics.  Some eastern estimates put him in Rome for no more than six months.  St. Peter is very much unlikely to have been the first bishop of Rome, since St. Paul when he writes his epistle to the Romans, does not acknowledge any presence of his co-Apostle.  Moreover, he is addressing, however, a fully established Church with Its own leaders and faithful flock.

I believe, and there is considerable support historical evidence and most specifically the biblical reference noted, that the claims of the Roman Catholic Church are fantasy and confabulation for the aim of protecting the "all-sacred thought of primacy and infallibility".

Relative to St. Paul's address in the Epistle, it seems Linus was the first bishop.  Funny, if St. Peter was this dominant figure of the Church, it seems there were more people, more active, more verbal, and more historically noteworthy than him, e.g., St. Paul and his preachings, St. James the Lesser as the presiding bishop at the Council of Jerusalem, etc.  Other than the two epistles attributed to him, there is really nothing else expounded on his presence in the post-Crucifixion/Resurrection era.

I think the thing to remember is, yet again:  The Roman Empire does not exist any more and the Roman Catholic Church should be trying to return to Its ecclesiastical mission and not to being an extension of the Roman Empire.  I will keep repeating this statement, because it is so true.