Do I Believe the Papacy At All? Yes.

Gen Z Catholic made a four part video against Sedevacantism : his overview of the history omits Pope Michael I · Do I Believe the Papacy At All? Yes. · Gen Z Catholic's Video, a Dialogue · Gen Z Catholic vs Me, Argument on Valid or not Papacies, Part I, What Would St. Robert Really Say? · Can the Proposed Defense For "united himself to each man" stand? No · Bishop Barron Against Rad Trads · Gen Z Catholic vs Me, Argument on Valid or not Papacies, Part II, Misreading Documents, Are We? · Gen Z Catholic vs Me, Argument on Valid or not Council · Gen Z Catholic vs Me, Argument on Valid or not Orders

Papal infallibility, papal primacy and other Orthodox objections against Catholicism
Biblical Bookworm | 31 Dec. 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKp13WXupvE

Not really, to Q at 0:10, in 2009, I was assisting an Orthodox sermon during Pentecost, doing my "four feasts" duty at least as far as Mass attendance was concerned and I was shocked to find, the priest found the remarks about condoms by "Pope Benedict XVI" uncharitable.

I found them too lax.

A Palaeohimerite (except some Russian Orthodox who are Palaeohimerite in Calendar only) would not have made the gaffe. B U T he would be making lots of other ones with very excessive vitriol against Catholicism and Catholics.

I had decided very early on, in my excursion to Orthodoxy, that filioque "though not in the creed" was perfectly Orthodox, had excellent backing in Patristics.

Check out my blog TrentoPhilaret (it's basically meant to compare two catechisms, Trentine and Philaret of Moscow, have so far done the first table of the commandments and found no stark contradiction to mark in red in these), on the widgets on the top, you'll find a page that says "Filioque far older than III Council of Toledo" (I quote a text from the FIRST Council of Toledo, while Spain was still ruled by Romans, the one against Priscillianism), and it literally includes the words:

Spiritum quoque Paraclitum esse, qui nec Pater sit ipse nec Filius, sed a Patre Filioque procedens. Est ergo ingenitus Pater, genitus Filius, non genitus Paraclitus sed a Patre Filioque procedens.

So much for the claim by Romanides and Metallinos that "filioque" was introduced by some royal amateurism in theology around the time of Third Council of Toledo (exaggerated distancing from Arianism by incompetent theologians who weren't Roman, poor little things, unlike us Gr... Rhomaioi) -- seems highly unlikely when the very Roman adversaries of Priscillianism confessed filioque, in a time not too far from when Hosius of Cordoba had met St. Athanasius, who, in his letters, had given a synonym to "filioque" and in the Quicumque (which I anyway do think is by him) had said the same thing.

So, I could not in good conscience go then, nor can I now, to the guys who profess so much vitriol against the filioque.

0:22 By Michael Lofton ... I was just quizzing him the other day on whether he had answered charges like "the martyrdom of St Peter the Aleut" or "complicity of Cardinal Stepinac" (with genocidal practises in Jasenovac) which usually don't turn up in polite ecumenic conversations, but pretty much are a real accusation from some very conservative Orthodox.

There is another Orthodox Church than Russians and now Ukraineans, who only have the old calendar, but the Serbs cannot be called PiCos.

They are perfectly able to bring such things up on the internet.

1:04 70 000 subscribers, noted. I was familiar with the rest.

So familiar, I am sure he has seen me in the comments section and concluded I am a spammer he doesn't want to give a platform ...

3:23 Does he ever adress the idea that the successor of St. Peter is each local bishop in each diocese?

That was the idea of Gregory Palamas. Pope Innocent III and Gregory Palamas both agree, that as the words in Mt 18:22 were adressed to St. Peter only the successor of St. Peter has (at least ordinary) capacity to absolve from all sins.

However, to Innocent III, that means each successive Pope.

To Gregory Palamas, each local bishop.

I don't find that to be resolvable in the Bible, since in Jerusalem in Acts 2, St. Peter, if he was the first pope (which I believe he was) automatically, as long as this was the only church, was the first local bishop (de facto, if not in name).

When I returned, I at first attended Holy Mass with the FSSPX, who, in other questions, are Western, but in ecclesiology are subreptitiously "Ortho" ...

"Obeying the Popes was good when the Popes were good" ... Mgr Lefebvre or Kallistos Ware? Either.

It was Stephan Borgehammar (I highly recommend "How the Holy Cross was found. From event to Medieval Legend") who brought me on track about 1st Millennium Tradition actually favouring the papacy.

4:51 In England, I think the saying is "sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander"

Goose = die Gans
Gander = der Gänserich

The meaning is, two of a kind should be treated as equals, and in the context of "sauce" it refers to when any avian of the anserine kind is served on the table, after suitable killing and cooking.

The cookbook doesn't say "this sauce must be served for a goose" or "that other sauce must be served with the gander" -- if a sauce goes with the one, it goes with the other.

And someone has in the English speaking world decided, this "everyday" or rather festive but at least culinary situation should be a parable about situations when someone erroneously states that equals don't deserve equal treatment.

6:06 Lofton does have, and share with the late Ratzinger, a very bad idea that the hagiographers were able to err on matters of science in their concrete choice of words, so that "what they wanted to really say" needs a deeper analysis, discarding for instance four corners or geostasis.

I recommend on this one the analysis a few decades earlier, c. 20 years before 1900, by Father Fulcran Vigouroux. He unfortunately believed in "day age" or that the geography known to Moses was the only part that needed to have been flooded (though he said all men were within that parameter), but on the basic principle of inerrancy, he actually gave me a lecture.

You see, I had taken inerrancy as too parallel with papal infallibility. In theory, a Pope could decide to decide infallibly on sth which did not need it, and thereby excommunicate people who were wrong, but not in a hopelessly bad way, and then God would still preserve him from forcing anyone to actually believe sth wrong, what he stated as the law of faith would in fact be correct.

God's act about infallibility is a negative preservation from error on certain occasions.

In the Bible, I learned from Father Vigouroux, and that this had been formally declared at the Vatican Council (1869--70), every part of the Bible is still God's very own initiative. This doesn't quite decide between verbal inspiration, the view he considered as traditional (you find it in St. Thomas!) or real inspiration (real as in thingish, "sachlich"), and considered, God took the initiative for each thing the author expressed, but left him freedom to chose the words within the perimeter of words that contain no error (and that even on scientific or historic matters, obviously).

So, once a holy author knew from God what he had to write on, he was as preserved from any error as Popes are (on certain occasions) from doctrinal such.

What seems worse is, Ratzinger's successor Bergoglio seems pretty certain to share the idea of Lofton and Ratzinger.

Just in case you wondered about my comment involving Vigouoroux, I have not only heard of Cardinal Franzelin, but I am getting his teaching on the matter of inspiration from precisely Vigouroux.

6:33 One could on that one answer, infallibility of real popes is sufficient even without councils, however, this was not recognised by all, and the reason so many councils were held, apart from when it was dubious in some degree where the true Pope was (as today, Philippines vs the buildings in Rome, some might even argue South Spain, which I would no longer agree with) wasn't that the Pope's decision was not objectively enough before God to bind the Church, but that it was not subjectively enough before all parties not formally schismatic in the Church.

One could argue that Papal infallibility was a primitive tradition (primitive in the true sense, as belonging to the first Christians), like the Immaculate Conception, that it was obfuscated in great parts of the Church, and that it was rediscovered.

If you discard what Pope St. Celestine I said about the Nestorius case, you cannot get any firm foundation for any kind of sedevacantism (including orthopapism), but if you agree with it, he was saying at least a month before the council of Ephesus, that the guys who considered Nestorius as autodeposed were right, and that solely based on what he taught, irrespectively on whether he was subjectively culpable of his heresy. So, by opposing all schools of sedevacantism and also all Biblical opposition to modern "science" Lofton places himself in a position where he has an interest in minimising papal infallibility.

6:52 Hor
MIS (weiches S)
das (scharfes S).

8:06 Pope Honorius remained in his words culpably indifferent to whether someone believed Jesus had one or two wills.

(We talk about Willensvermögen, not about Willensinhalt here).

This culpable indifference was reprised:
1950, whether a man believed God created Adam directly from muddied soil, or indirectly via biological ancestry
2023 (whether by a Pope or not), whether a priest could bless two men in a counternatural couple only if they showed signs of repentance, or whether it can also be extended, horrible thought which struck me, to two men considering their mutual "fidelity" as a moral improvement, which would be a very erroneous practise.

However, an indifference in statement very certainly cannot be construed as a statement directly favouring the false alternative, and therefore still falls with the negative preservation, which defines Papal infallibility (which may be totally irrelevant for Bergoglio, if he's not the real Pope, but anyway).

8:11 Honorius may have been condemned by the majority vote, but not by the confirmation made by Pope St. Leo II.

The latter only inculpated him for favouring a heresy by not condemning it.

8:26 Oh, Pope Honorius spoke of "one will in Christ"? That was obviously about the Willensinhalt.

Prosit Neujahr!

When it comes to Pope St. Hormisdas, it's pretty obvious at least his parents did not agree with the synod of Diamper, since Hormizd the martyr is the only one he could have been named for.

w a i t, sorry, in fact it was the other Hormizd, Hormizd the Rabban, who was suppressed at Diamper.