Monday, December 26, 2022

More on Papacy

Wretched - 25 (such) "reasons Peter was not the first Pope" · Mariology · Michael Lofton Qualifies Protestantism as Self-Contradictory - a Qualified Agreement · More on Papacy

Does This One Pope Discredit the Papacy? w/ Erick Ybarra
Pints With Aquinas | 31 March 2022

4:55 Is this why Pope St. Leo IX says that the decisions of the first see are "ex se irreformabiles, nisi quid supreptum sit"?

In the first decree Vigilius was dealing with something "subreptum" - a swapped letter.

9:42 "two Isaiah, five writers of the Pentateuch" ...

According to modern (very flawed) scholarship.

On the topic of the Pentateuch, it holds up in Biblical history. Not identic, but akin to and included in dogma.

10:04 Let's distinguish "infallibility" and "inerrancy".

The Bible is inerrant, but it could lead someone unwary astray, or rather allow someone to twist his understanding of it astray. It's basically for bishops or theologians rather than normal lay men. But the original and at least somewhere preserved version of the text cannot be factually wrong (either dogma or small fact).

The Church is infallible. It could be wrong (in much, but not all of Tradition, as in Fathers) on a fact, as long as the fact did not affect dogma.

Example : nearly all Fathers after St. Irenaeus (the exceptions being some of his contemporaries and only maybe a Gallican martyrology) identify the Beloved Disciple with one son of Zebedee, one of the twelve. As soon as he was an "apostle" in any sense, it still upholds revelation being completed before the death of the last apostle. If he was a Cohen and one of the 72, that's fine, even if most Church men since St. Irenaeus were factually wrong : because they were not doctrinally wrong.

It's like Aristotle's strongest argument for earth being round is sound as an argument even if wrong as a fact : Magellan providing what "Ganges = Gibraltar" lacked.

What matters is, a Gospel written AD 100 and a Revelation received AD 90 on Patmos were received and written with the competence of one who had known Jesus and the Blessed Virgin - and this is correct even on the thesis of Fr. Jean Colson. So, the Church is infallible, but not factually inerrant. However, if all Church fathers, including Papias and Asia Minor ones, remaining there (unlike St. Irenaeus, who left Asia Minor at 16), had said or shown agreement that the Beloved Disciple were the Son of Zebedee, then probably Church infallibility would have provided inerrancy on the case, even if the Church in principle does not have inerrancy.

But the Bible actually having inerrancy is part of Church teaching over the centuries, and "Deutero-Isaiah" and "Yahwist-Elohist +" is not. Unlike the Cohen John as one of 72, this is not compatible with the sources' claims about the authorships.

13:26 One reason I reverted and on one issue even before my conversion to Romanian Orthodox - filioque - is because St Athanasius (the hero of heros in patristics, the gold standard) clearly taught the doctrine, not just in the disputed quicumque vult, but also in letters.

Another one is, Photius died in peace with Rome, and indirectly in communion with Franks teaching the filioque, while Caerularius missed out on some aspects of the chronology of the passion.

Let's recall, the excommunication was immediately over Caerularius pretending "azymes" are illicit matter. And even invalid matter. He did this over pretending Christ "could not" have celebrated a normal legal torahic Seder. Why? Because He was crucified "on the day of preparation of the Jews" ... he missed that Christ and the Temple could have started Nisan on two consecutive days, if Caesarea Philippi spotted the new moon one evening before Jerusalem (which is further east), since the Jews didn't have a printed calendar according to a foreseeable programme (we can foresee the calendar of 2024, a leap year beginning on a Monday, unless a revolutution or Doomsday intervenes) but an empiric calendar, with observation of the new moon starting months, like Muslims have to this day (and a few years ago, Muslims in France started Ramadan on different days).

Dialogues under others' comments:


Count on a Catholic to discredit scriptural inerrancy while arguing for papal infallibility and supremacy. What a joke. Who do you worship? Christ or his disciples ?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Erick Ybarra is a Vatican II:er and therefore, while hoping to be a Catholic wrong about actually being one.

Real Catholics do not discredit or attack Biblical inerrancy. They claim it both for and through Papal infallibility.


Matt you should check out the interesting story of Pope Stephen VI and the Cadaver Synod. It’s a WILD story

Hans-Georg Lundahl
And it proves, sedevacantism can be true at times.

I think it was Stephen VI who claimed the see of Peter had been vacant in the day of Formosus.

Whether he was right or wrong on Formosus matters less than the fact that he held it compatible with his Catholic doctrine that the previous "apparent" Pope (apparent from facts like recognition, coronation etc, not on all counts) was in fact no Pope.

Confer some Vatican II:ers who now compare Sedevacantism in all forms to heresy (I think I heard Fr Pine going on that theme).

Tennis Brah
@Hans-Georg Lundahl Could one claim that being a Sedevancant in times of serious heresy from the Pope is actually right in God's eyes than to stay with the Pope and closing your eyes to church's heresy in hope of 'being safe'?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Tennis Brah Right now, I am technically speaking not Sedevacantist, but Conclavist. But this presupposes Sedevacantism being true back in the day when David Bawden was convoking an emergency conclave.


John G.
It is not an issue when you never placed any FAITH in a pope to begin with. The word of God comes from the Bible, not the pope.

yeah good luck interpreting it properly without the assistance of a magisterium that's been trained to understand and interpret it as accurately as possible

Hans-Georg Lundahl
The canon of the Bible comes from the Pope.

Why is the NT 27 books, like a council of Rome said and not 26 as one of Laodicea said, mid 4th C?

Rome was, Laodicea wasn't the city of the Pope.

No comments: