[theguidedheart]

Originally Posted by Reedolo

TGH, did you see my post #112 about the term "ecclesiastical body"? What are your thoughts on that?

I agree completley, you MUST abide in the ecclesiastical body of Christ for salvation - He is the Truth, the Way and Light. There is no other way apart from Him - the Church being His body, in a mystical way - both physical and spiritual is absolutely required, and we become apart of that body through baptism... ecclesiastical makes no mention of physical or spiritual, for example, from the dictionary:

ec·cle·si·as·ti·cal (?-kl?'z?-?s't?-k?l) Pronunciation Key
adj.
Of or relating to a church, especially as an organized institution.

...the differentiation between physical and spiritual is not there, it CAN be physical, but if ecclesiastical is pertaining to the CC than it would automatically mean both physical and spiritual.

I don't know if that made sense or not. - btw you should post these questions to forums.catholic.com - there are much smarter people on there than me .... infact I have even seen threads there about Unum Sanctum + VII..


Peace

[milkmandog]

Originally Posted by theguidedheart

You and me are talking 2 different things - the Church doesn't go out and look for sinful and corrupt leaders, there have been times in history (and few and far between really, infact I heard the estimate that if you take all of the popes in history, and take a percentage of the ones who were corrupt, it comes out to 1/12 - ironically in porportion with the number if disciples that went corrupt - this does approve or disapprove the argument, I just thought it should be noted) - anyway there have been times in history where leaders are turned out to indulge in corruption more than teaching, the fact of the matter is, no church teaching was ever changed during these periods. Its a much different thing to say 'Those appointed to Bishop SHOULD be........" and to say those who are appointed to Bishop have gone bad.

I, and the Church for that matter would agree on those passages for requirements, but it doesn't prevent sinfulness from entering man. Judas is the prime example, and he was handpicked by God himself.

Ironically you are pulling verses to argue me, which show clear support for a physical office of bishop...

Peace

But in the new testamanet, bishop elder and pastor are all the same office.

[theguidedheart]

Originally Posted by milkmandog

But in the new testamanet, bishop elder and pastor are all the same office.

Yes, I agree...?

[theguidedheart]

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

Not only that, but the issue he was excommunicated for happened around 8 years before he died. That means that for 8 years this man was the "Vicar of Christ" while not even being part of "the Church". I find it hard to believe that he never spoke on doctrine for those 8 years.

He was excommunicated over something he wrote in private letter to the Patriarch in Constantinople though, he never came out and made a public definitive teaching for the Church in regards to Monophsyitism..(sp?)... other than this error in judgement on his part, he spent alot of his pontificate doing great things - mostly of civil nature - in matters related to the Church he did alot to support its growth without teaching or defining anything new.

[milkmandog]

Originally Posted by theguidedheart

He was excommunicated over something he wrote in private letter to the Patriarch in Constantinople though, he never came out and made a public definitive teaching for the Church in regards to Monophsyitism..(sp?)... other than this error in judgement on his part, he spent alot of his pontificate doing great things - mostly of civil nature - in matters related to the Church he did alot to support its growth without teaching or defining anything new.

TGH, the whole point of the discussion was Reed said that Homorius was excommunicated, which was the same as firing the Pope. The way a protestant church would fire a pastor that was in error. We were refuting this point by Reed, by pointing out that He was excommunicated after his death, which is not the same as firing a pastor. Since we usually don't wait forty years after the death of a Ted Haggard or some other pastor in error or sin to remove them from office. It seems that the catholic church never removes a pope from office no matter how sinful his behaviour is.

[KFBobInsanesMom]

Originally Posted by theguidedheart

You and me are talking 2 different things - the Church doesn't go out and look for sinful and corrupt leaders, there have been times in history (and few and far between really, infact I heard the estimate that if you take all of the popes in history, and take a percentage of the ones who were corrupt, it comes out to 1/12 - ironically in porportion with the number if disciples that went corrupt - this does approve or disapprove the argument, I just thought it should be noted) - anyway there have been times in history where leaders are turned out to indulge in corruption more than teaching, the fact of the matter is, no church teaching was ever changed during these periods. Its a much different thing to say 'Those appointed to Bishop SHOULD be........" and to say those who are appointed to Bishop have gone bad.

I, and the Church for that matter would agree on those passages for requirements, but it doesn't prevent sinfulness from entering man. Judas is the prime example, and he was handpicked by God himself.

Ironically you are pulling verses to argue me, which show clear support for a physical office of bishop...

Peace

Again, you need to read what I write, I never said there were not bishops. What there isn't is a "bishop above all other bishops who has ultimate authority over the rest".

You can claim that no church teaching was done during that time, but isn't that a rather unbelievable thing for someone to swallow? A Pope is in office for years and never "teaches"?

[KFBobInsanesMom]

Originally Posted by theguidedheart

- anyway there have been times in history where leaders are turned out to indulge in corruption more than teaching, the fact of the matter is, no church teaching was ever changed during these periods. Its a much different thing to say 'Those appointed to Bishop SHOULD be........" and to say those who are appointed to Bishop have gone bad.

No, scripture says "must be above reproach". Why didn't the Catholic church remove this corrupt "Popes" immediately?

[KFBobInsanesMom]

Originally Posted by theguidedheart

He was excommunicated over something he wrote in private letter to the Patriarch in Constantinople though, he never came out and made a public definitive teaching for the Church in regards to Monophsyitism..(sp?)... other than this error in judgement on his part, he spent alot of his pontificate doing great things - mostly of civil nature - in matters related to the Church he did alot to support its growth without teaching or defining anything new.

If it was for a "private letter" then 1. why would he be excommunicated? 2. Why all of this (what follows) if it was just a "personal letter"


1. His condemnation is found in the Acts in the xiiith Session, near the beginning.

2. His two letters were ordered to be burned at the same session.

3. In the xvith Session the bishops exclaimed ‘Anathema to the heretic Sergius, to the heretic Cyrus, to the heretic Honorius, etc.’

4. In the decree of faith published at the xviijth Session it is stated that ‘the originator of all evil ... found a fit tool for his will in ... Honorius, Pope of Old Rome, etc.’

5. The report of the Council to the Emperor says that ‘Honorius, formerly bishop of Rome’ they had ‘punished with exclusion and anathema’ because he followed the monothelites.

6. In its letter to Pope Agatho the Council says it ‘has slain with anathema Honorius.’

7. The imperial decree speaks of the ‘unholy priests who infected the Church and falsely governed’ and mentions among them ‘Honorius, the Pope of Old Rome, the confirmer of heresy who contradicted himself.’ The Emperor goes on to anathematize ‘Honorius who was Pope of Old Rome, who in everything agreed with them, went with them, and strengthened the heresy.’

8. Pope Leo II. confirmed the decrees of the Council and expressly says that he too anathematized Honorius.

‘Also Honorins. qui hanc apostolicam sedem non apostolilcae traditionis doctrina lustravit, sed profana proditione immaculatam fidem subvertere conatus est, et omnes, qui in suo errore defuncti sunt.’

9. That Honorius was anathematized by the Sixth Council is mentioned in the Trullan Canons (No. j.).

10. So too the Seventh Council declares its adhesion to the anathema in its decree of faith, and in several places in the acts the same is said.

11. Honorius’s name was found in the Roman copy of the Acts. This is evident from Anastasius’s life of Leo II. (Vita Leonis II.)

12. The Papal Oath as found in the Liber Diurnus taken by each new Pope from the [eighth] to the eleventh century, in the form probably prescribed by Gregory II., ‘smites with eternal anathema the originators of the new heresy, Sergius, etc., together with Honorius, because he assisted the base assertion of the heretics.’

13. In the lesson for the feast of St. Leo II. in the Roman Breviary the name of Pope Honorius occurs among those excommunicated by the Sixth Synod. Upon this we may well hear Bossuet: ‘They suppress as far as they can, the Liber Diurnus: they have erased this from the Roman Breviary. Have they therefore hidden it? Truth breaks out from all sides, and these things become so much the more evident, as they are the more studiously put out of sight.’

[Reedolo]

Originally Posted by theguidedheart

You and me are talking 2 different things - the Church doesn't go out and look for sinful and corrupt leaders, there have been times in history (and few and far between really, infact I heard the estimate that if you take all of the popes in history, and take a percentage of the ones who were corrupt, it comes out to 1/12 - ironically in porportion with the number if disciples that went corrupt - this does approve or disapprove the argument, I just thought it should be noted) - anyway there have been times in history where leaders are turned out to indulge in corruption more than teaching, the fact of the matter is, no church teaching was ever changed during these periods. Its a much different thing to say 'Those appointed to Bishop SHOULD be........" and to say those who are appointed to Bishop have gone bad.

I, and the Church for that matter would agree on those passages for requirements, but it doesn't prevent sinfulness from entering man. Judas is the prime example, and he was handpicked by God himself.

Ironically you are pulling verses to argue me, which show clear support for a physical office of bishop...

Peace

Wow, that's really interesting how the number comes out to about 1/12! Thanks for noting that, TGH.

[Reedolo]

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

If it was for a "private letter" then 1. why would he be excommunicated? 2. Why all of this (what follows) if it was just a "personal letter"


1. His condemnation is found in the Acts in the xiiith Session, near the beginning.

2. His two letters were ordered to be burned at the same session.

3. In the xvith Session the bishops exclaimed ‘Anathema to the heretic Sergius, to the heretic Cyrus, to the heretic Honorius, etc.’

4. In the decree of faith published at the xviijth Session it is stated that ‘the originator of all evil ... found a fit tool for his will in ... Honorius, Pope of Old Rome, etc.’

5. The report of the Council to the Emperor says that ‘Honorius, formerly bishop of Rome’ they had ‘punished with exclusion and anathema’ because he followed the monothelites.

6. In its letter to Pope Agatho the Council says it ‘has slain with anathema Honorius.’

7. The imperial decree speaks of the ‘unholy priests who infected the Church and falsely governed’ and mentions among them ‘Honorius, the Pope of Old Rome, the confirmer of heresy who contradicted himself.’ The Emperor goes on to anathematize ‘Honorius who was Pope of Old Rome, who in everything agreed with them, went with them, and strengthened the heresy.’

8. Pope Leo II. confirmed the decrees of the Council and expressly says that he too anathematized Honorius.

‘Also Honorins. qui hanc apostolicam sedem non apostolilcae traditionis doctrina lustravit, sed profana proditione immaculatam fidem subvertere conatus est, et omnes, qui in suo errore defuncti sunt.’

9. That Honorius was anathematized by the Sixth Council is mentioned in the Trullan Canons (No. j.).

10. So too the Seventh Council declares its adhesion to the anathema in its decree of faith, and in several places in the acts the same is said.

11. Honorius’s name was found in the Roman copy of the Acts. This is evident from Anastasius’s life of Leo II. (Vita Leonis II.)

12. The Papal Oath as found in the Liber Diurnus taken by each new Pope from the [eighth] to the eleventh century, in the form probably prescribed by Gregory II., ‘smites with eternal anathema the originators of the new heresy, Sergius, etc., together with Honorius, because he assisted the base assertion of the heretics.’

13. In the lesson for the feast of St. Leo II. in the Roman Breviary the name of Pope Honorius occurs among those excommunicated by the Sixth Synod. Upon this we may well hear Bossuet: ‘They suppress as far as they can, the Liber Diurnus: they have erased this from the Roman Breviary. Have they therefore hidden it? Truth breaks out from all sides, and these things become so much the more evident, as they are the more studiously put out of sight.’

All of this just goes to show that popes are not perfect. It does not prove the papacy wrong.

Judas betrayed Jesus, but his Apostolic seat was still filled after his death. The personal sin of someone doesn't affect their Divine Office.

[KFBobInsanesMom]

Originally Posted by Reedolo

All of this just goes to show that popes are not perfect. It does not prove the papacy wrong.

Judas betrayed Jesus, but his Apostolic seat was still filled after his death. The personal sin of someone doesn't affect their Divine Office.

Reed, if Christ had done the things some of these popes have done, would you follow Him?? The pope is called the "vicar of Christ", here is the New Advent definition of what that means: A title of the pope implying his supreme and universal primacy, both of honour and of jurisdiction, over the Church of Christ

The pope is claimed to have "supreme and universal primacy of honour", this doesn't say only when he is speaking on matters of doctrine or faith. I don't disagree that men are sinful, or that men God chose were sinful, but NONE of them made a claim such as this. If they had, they would be liars. This is my issue with these popes. If they did not make such claims, then no problem, but they do.

It shows more than "popes are not perfect". It shows that one supposedly selected by the Holy Spirit to be the "Vicar of Christ" was declared to be "outside the church'. How can that be?

[Reedolo]

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

Reed, if Christ had done the things some of these popes have done, would you follow Him?? The pope is called the "vicar of Christ", here is the New Advent definition of what that means: A title of the pope implying his supreme and universal primacy, both of honour and of jurisdiction, over the Church of Christ

The pope is claimed to have "supreme and universal primacy of honour", this doesn't say only when he is speaking on matters of doctrine or faith. I don't disagree that men are sinful, or that men God chose were sinful, but NONE of them made a claim such as this. If they had, they would be liars. This is my issue with these popes. If they did not make such claims, then no problem, but they do.

It shows more than "popes are not perfect". It shows that one supposedly selected by the Holy Spirit to be the "Vicar of Christ" was declared to be "outside the church'. How can that be?

I don't know. But that doesn't mean the Church is wrong, that just means I don't fully understand it. I'm willing to submit to God's will and acknowledge that He knows how to run His Church better than I do.

[KFBobInsanesMom]

Originally Posted by Reedolo

I don't know. But that doesn't mean the Church is wrong, that just means I don't fully understand it. I'm willing to submit to God's will and acknowledge that He knows how to run His Church better than I do.

Is there anything that the Catholic church would do that you make you agree that they aren't "God's church"?

God does know how to run His church, which is why I cannot agree that a church with a history like the Catholic church is His church.

[Reedolo]

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

Is there anything that the Catholic church would do that you make you agree that they aren't "God's church"?

God does know how to run His church, which is why I cannot agree that a church with a history like the Catholic church is His church.

I think the history of any human institution is going to be satiated with human failure and evil. The reason why I believe the Catholic Church is divine is because it has Christ as its Head, and its teaching is the teaching of Christ. I see all the superficial corruptions of the past as wounds to the body of Christ, but not intrinsic, substantial changes that made the Cathoilc Church anything other than Christ's bride. When the Church is in a time of trouble, we should remain faithful to her anyway, not break away and start a new Church, as if it were possible to make a new Body of Christ.

I suppose I would be convinced that the Catholic Church isn't what it claims to be if it could be proven that the teaching of the Church had ever contradicted itself, or if someone could show that there is another that is the true body of Christ. I don't see how that's possible because the Body of Christ has to be one, and unified.. and all of Protestantism is divided.

[theguidedheart]

Originally Posted by Reedolo

Wow, that's really interesting how the number comes out to about 1/12! Thanks for noting that, TGH.

I wish I could remember who said that, I can't take credit ... I think it was Patrick Madrid.