This pretty succinctly lists Papal dogmas and proves they did not exist in the early Church, like Papal Infallibility, Indulgences, Immaculate Conception, etcetera.
Not worth the effort.] or time to sit through 35 minutes. I asked for a written summary and was denied.I have to say, I'm very disappointed with the response of Catholics to this video being posted. No one has attempted to engage the actual content, they've simply dismissed it as anti-Catholic misinformation. They also had the opportunity to point out any flaws in the arguments within the walled off confines of OBOB, but instead cited the Congregational forum rules to have the thread deleted.
This was the first one, posted in St Justin Martyrs where non Orthodox are free to debate. No one did which is why abacabb3 posted in OBOB, to get a Catholic response, only to be rudely shown to the door.
Isn't it problematic that some important beliefs are not present in the Early Church?Not worth the effort.] or time to sit through 35 minutes. I asked for a written summary and was denied.
On the other hand, no knowledgeable Catholic will claim that Papal Infallibility, Indulgences, or Immaculate Conception existed in the early church or church of Acts and Epistles.
Why wo threads?
or those that used to be contradicted by RomeIsn't it problematic that some important beliefs are not present in the Early Church?
On the other hand, no knowledgeable Catholic will claim that Papal Infallibility, Indulgences, or Immaculate Conception existed in the early church or church of Acts and Epistles.
I just happened to have a look at the tract one of the Catholics linked to on Papal Infallibility and this is a classic example of what you just stated.You joke. I have had numerous interactions online with Catholic apologists who will say exactly that. What they do is to twist the words of the Fathers to make them sound as if these dogmas are being taught. It is profoundly dishonest and makes me lack any respect for them.
I just happened to have a look at the tract one of the Catholics linked to on Papal Infallibility and this is a classic example of what you just stated.
From the tract:
As Christians began to more clearly understand the teaching authority of the Church and the primacy of the pope, they developed a clearer understanding of the pope’s infallibility. This development of the faithful’s understanding has its clear beginnings in the early Church. Saint Augustine succinctly captured the ancient attitude when he remarked, “Rome has spoken; the case is concluded” (Sermons 131, 10).
Below is the actual quote from St Augustine.
My brothers and sisters, please share my anxiety and concern. Wherever you find such people, don’t keep quiet about them, don’t be perversely soft-hearted. No question about it, wherever you find such people, don’t keep quiet about them. Argue with them when they speak against grace, and if they persist, bring them to us. You see, there have already been two councils about this matter, and their decisions sent to the Apostolic See; from there rescripts have been sent back here. The case is finished;
"Jam enim de hac causa duo concilia missa sunt ad sedem apostolicam; inde etiam rescripta venerunt; causa finita est: Utinam aliquando finiatur error" (Sermon 131 from Migne, PL 38:734).I just happened to have a look at the tract one of the Catholics linked to on Papal Infallibility and this is a classic example of what you just stated.
From the tract:
As Christians began to more clearly understand the teaching authority of the Church and the primacy of the pope, they developed a clearer understanding of the pope’s infallibility. This development of the faithful’s understanding has its clear beginnings in the early Church. Saint Augustine succinctly captured the ancient attitude when he remarked, “Rome has spoken; the case is concluded” (Sermons 131, 10).
Below is the actual quote from St Augustine.
My brothers and sisters, please share my anxiety and concern. Wherever you find such people, don’t keep quiet about them, don’t be perversely soft-hearted. No question about it, wherever you find such people, don’t keep quiet about them. Argue with them when they speak against grace, and if they persist, bring them to us. You see, there have already been two councils about this matter, and their decisions sent to the Apostolic See; from there rescripts have been sent back here. The case is finished;
Augustine was from Hippo, near Carthage in North Africa, and thus fell under Rome's jurisdiction. Thus they would receive official pronouncements from Church Councils via Rome"Jam enim de hac causa duo concilia missa sunt ad sedem apostolicam; inde etiam rescripta venerunt; causa finita est: Utinam aliquando finiatur error" (Sermon 131 from Migne, PL 38:734).
In Latin a rescriptum is a written reply. The English translation is also perfectly adequate:
Rescript (Merriam-Webster):
- a written answer of a Roman emperor or of a pope to a legal inquiry or petition
- an official or authoritative order, decree, edict, or announcement
- an act or instance of rewriting
I suppose someone could prefer M-W (3) to (1), (2), the Latin meaning, and the context, but that would be an odd thing to do. If the Apostolic See had no role in the authority of the decrees, then why mention it in this context? Is the claim somehow that the Apostolic See was only jointly authoritative alongside the two local councils? I think the more sophisticated Orthodox response is that this only signifies appellate jurisdiction.