Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: AnthonyPadua on May 12, 2024, 05:21:02 AM
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrypAPnQPOQ
This was a really strong video and in my opinion is worth your time. More ammunition against the eastern schismatics.
-
I'm glad that the Dimonds continue to produce excellent defenses of the Catholic faith against the Eastern schismatics. I've seen too many young traditional Catholic men be seduced by that religion, primarily due to the crisis in the Catholic Church today and charismatic orthobros exploiting that. Eastern "Orthodoxy" crumbles on itself once you look beyond its beautiful external elements and study it's foundation. It refutes itself in a manner that is not that different from Protestantism.
-
It's too bad the Dimonds won't tackle the false Pseudo-Isidorian decretals, the Symachian forgeries and the donation of Constantine. I have asked them for years and they haven't dealt with it.
-
It's too bad the Dimonds won't tackle the false Pseudo-Isidorian decretals, the Symachian forgeries and the donation of Constantine. I have asked them for years and they haven't dealt with it.
Why would they waste time on those? Rome has never relied on those for proofs of it's claims, and everyone acknowledges they're forgeries. What about them needs to be dealt with, and how does this pertain to Vigilius?
-
Why would they waste time on those? Rome has never relied on those for proofs of it's claims, and everyone acknowledges they're forgeries. What about them needs to be dealt with, and how does this pertain to Vigilius?
Rome has actually relied upon these quite heavily. The authenticity being unknown to St Thomas Aquinas, he relied upon these for his refutation of the Greeks in regards to the papacy, specifically St Cyril. This was the basis for the Catechism of Trent, with I believe, 11 citations that have since proved to be forgeries.
These forgeries also played a significant part in Gregory VII's Dictatus Papae.
-
Rome has actually relied upon these quite heavily. The authenticity being unknown to St Thomas Aquinas, he relied upon these for his refutation of the Greeks in regards to the papacy, specifically St Cyril. This was the basis for the Catechism of Trent, with I believe, 11 citations that have since proved to be forgeries.
These forgeries also played a significant part in Gregory VII's Dictatus Papae.
Nonsense. You have individuals in history who were taken in by the forgeries, but Rome itself never used them to prove it's claims, and never relied on them. There is sufficient proof in scripture, the writings of the fathers, and elsewhere.
The Dictatus Papae is attributed to Gregory VII, but it itself is a forgery in that no one can agree on who wrote it. Most scholars agree that St. Gregory VII was not the author.
Please list the citations in the Roman Catechism that you refer to.
I have read St. Thomas' work against the Greeks, and do not recall him relying on the forged works. If I am mistaken, please quote them.
I have come across many of the claims you make in my reading, particularly among the Orthodox apologists. They hang on these forgeries like it's some kind of "gotcha", failing to understand that throughout history forgeries were as common as weeds in an neglected garden. It was a massive problem.
Again, I reiterate, everyone acknowledges those docuмents you mentioned were forgeries.
And again, what does this have to do with Vigilius?
-
I find it suspicious that, as the original post was a refutation of Orthodox arguments, you change the topic to focus on something unrelated, yet playing into the arguments in favor of the eastern schismatics, even going so far as to echo their talking points.
-
...many young traditional Catholic men be seduced by that religion, primarily due to the crisis in the Catholic Church today and charismatic orthobros exploiting that.
This is becoming a pandemic and a plague. Youtube is crawling with orthobro grifters.
-
I find it suspicious that, as the original post was a refutation of Orthodox arguments, you change the topic to focus on something unrelated, yet playing into the arguments in favor of the eastern schismatics, even going so far as to echo their talking points.
LeDeg was involved in another thread a few months back, which was anti-papacy. Your suspicions are justified.
-
Nonsense. You have individuals in history who were taken in by the forgeries, but Rome itself never used them to prove it's claims, and never relied on them. There is sufficient proof in scripture, the writings of the fathers, and elsewhere.
The Dictatus Papae is attributed to Gregory VII, but it itself is a forgery in that no one can agree on who wrote it. Most scholars agree that St. Gregory VII was not the author.
Please list the citations in the Roman Catechism that you refer to.
I have read St. Thomas' work against the Greeks, and do not recall him relying on the forged works. If I am mistaken, please quote them.
I have come across many of the claims you make in my reading, particularly among the Orthodox apologists. They hang on these forgeries like it's some kind of "gotcha", failing to understand that throughout history forgeries were as common as weeds in an neglected garden. It was a massive problem.
Again, I reiterate, everyone acknowledges those docuмents you mentioned were forgeries.
And again, what does this have to do with Vigilius?
In the middle of the ninth century—about 845—there arose the huge fabrication of the Isidorian decretals…About a hundred pretended decrees of the earliest Popes, together with certain spurious writings of other Church dignitaries and acts of Synods, were then fabricated in the west of Gaul, and eagerly seized upon Pope Nicholas I at Rome, to be used as genuine docuмents in support of the new claims put forward by himself and his successors.
That the pseudo–Isidorian principles eventually revolutionized the whole constitution of the Church, and introduced a new system in place of the old—on that point there can be no controversy among candid historians.
The most potent instrument of the new Papal system was Gratian’s Decretum, which issued about the middle of the twelfth century from the first school of Law in Europe, the juristic teacher of the whole of Western Christendom, Bologna. In this work the Isidorian forgeries were combined with those of the other Gregorian (Gregory VII) writers…and with Gratia’s own additions. His work displaced all the older collections of canon law, and became the manual and repertory, not for canonists only, but for the scholastic theologians, who, for the most part, derived all their knowledge of Fathers and Councils from it. No book has ever come near it in its influence in the Church, although there is scarcely another so chockful of gross errors, both intentional and unintentional (Johann Joseph Ignaz von Döllinger, The Pope and the Council (Boston: Roberts, 1870), pp. 76-77, 79, 115-116).
In 1264 A.D. Thomas authored a work entitled Against the Errors of the Greeks. This work deals with the issues of theological debate between the Greek and Roman Churches in that day on such subjects as the Trinity, the Procession of the Holy Spirit, Purgatory and the Papacy. In his defense of the papacy Thomas bases practically his entire argument on forged quotations of Church fathers. Under the names of the eminent Greek fathers such as Cyril of Jerusalem, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria and Maximus the Abbott, a Latin forger had compiled a catena of quotations interspersing a number that were genuine with many that were forged which was subsequently submitted to Pope Urban IV. This work became known as the Thesaurus of Greek Fathers or Thesaurus Graecorum Patrum. In addition the Latin author also included spurious canons from early Ecuмenical Councils. Pope Urban in turn submitted the work to Thomas Aquinas who used many of the forged passages in his work Against the Errors of the Greeks mistakenly thinking they were genuine. These spurious quotations had enormous influence on many Western theologians in succeeding centuries. The following is a sample of Thomas’ argumentation for the papacy using the spurious quotations from the Thesaurus:
Chapter thirty-four
That the same (the Roman Pontiff) possesses in the Church a fullness of power.
It is also established from the texts of the aforesaid Doctors that the Roman Pontiff possesses a fullness of power in the Church. For Cyril, the Patriarch of Alexandria, says in his Thesaurus: “As Christ coming forth from Israel as leader and scepter of the Church of the Gentiles was granted by the Father the fullest power over every principality and power and whatever is that all might bend the knee to him, so he entrusted most fully the fullest power to Peter and his successors.” And again: “To no one else but Peter and to him alone Christ gave what is his fully.” And further on: “The feet of Christ are his humanity, that is, the man himself, to whom the whole Trinity gave the fullest power, whom one of the Three assumed in the unity of his person and lifted up on high to the Father above every principality and power, so that all the angels of God might adore him (Hebr. 1:6); which whole and entire he has left in sacrament and power to Peter and to his Church.
And Chrysostom says to the Bulgarian delegation speaking in the person of Christ: “Three times I ask you whether you love me, because you denied me three times out of fear and trepidation. Now restored, however, lest the brethren believe you to have lost the grace and authority of the keys, I now confirm in you that which is fully mine, because you love me in their presence.”
This is also taught on the authority of Scripture. For in Matthew 16:19 the Lord said to Peter without restriction: Whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven.
Chapter thirty-five
That he enjoys the same power conferred on Peter by Christ.
It is also shown that Peter is the Vicar of Christ and the Roman Pontiff is Peter’s successor enjoying the same power conferred on Peter by Christ. For the canon of the Council of Chalcedon says: “If any bishop is sentenced as guilty of infamy, he is free to appeal the sentence to the blessed bishop of old Rome, whom we have as Peter the rock of refuge, and to him alone, in the place of God, with unlimited power, is granted the authority to hear the appeal of a bishop accused of infamy in virtue of the keys given him by the Lord.” And further on: “And whatever has been decreed by him is to be held as from the vicar of the apostolic throne.”
Likewise, Cyril, the Patriarch of Jerusalem, says, speaking in the person of Christ: “You for a while, but I without end will be fully and perfectly in sacrament and authority with all those whom I shall put in your place, just as I am also with you.” And Cyril of Alexandria in his Thesaurus says that the Apostles “in the Gospels and Epistles have affirmed in all their teaching that Peter and his Church are in the place of the Lord, granting him participation in every chapter and assembly, in every election and proclamation of doctrine.” And further on: “To him, that is, to Peter, all by divine ordinance bow the head, and the rulers of the world obey him as the Lord Jesus himself.” And Chrysostom, speaking in the person of Christ, says: “Feed my sheep (John 21:17), that is, in my place be in charge of your brethren” (St. Thomas Aquinas, Against the Errors of the Greeks. Found in James Likoudis, Ending the Byzantine Greek Schism (New Rochelle: Catholics United for the Faith, 1992), pp. 182-184).
With the exception of the last reference to Chrysostom all of Thomas’ references cited to Cyril of Jerusalem, Cyril of Alexandria, Chrysostom and the Council of Chalcedon are forgeries. The remainder of Aquinas’ treatise in defense of the papacy is similar in nature.
In theology, from the beginning of the fourteenth century, the spurious passages of St. Cyril and forged canons of Councils maintained their ground, being guaranteed against all suspicion by the authority of St. Thomas. Since the work of Trionfo in 1320, up to 1450, it is remarkable that no single new work appeared in the interests of the Papal system. But then the contest between the Council of Basle and Pope Eugenius IV evoked the work of Cardinal Torquemada, besides some others of less importance. Torquemada’s argument, which was held up to the time of Bellarmine to be the most conclusive apology of the Papal system, rests entirely on fabrications later than the pseudo-Isidore, and chiefly on the spurious passages of St. Cyril. To ignore the authority of St. Thomas is, according to the Cardinal, bad enough, but to slight the testimony of St. Cyril is intolerable. The Pope is infallible; all authority of other bishops is borrowed or derived from his. Decisions of Councils without his assent are null and void. These fundamental principles of Torquemada are proved by spurious passages of Anacletus, Clement, the Council of Chalcedon, St. Cyril, and a mass of forged or adulterated testimonies. In the times of Leo X and Clement III, the Cardinals Thomas of Vio, or Cajetan, and Jacobazzi, followed closely in his footsteps. Melchior Canus built firmly on the authority of Cyril, attested by St. Thomas, and so did Bellarmine and the Jesuits who followed him. Those who wish to get a bird’s–eye view of the extent to which the genuine tradition of Church authority was still overlaid and obliterated by the rubbish of later inventions and forgeries about 1563, when the Loci of Canus appeared, must read the fifth book of his work. It is indeed still worse fifty years later in this part of Bellarmine’s work. The difference is that Canus was honest in his belief, which cannot be said of Bellarmine.
The Dominicans, Nicolai, Le Quien, Quetif, and Echard, were the first to avow openly that their master St. Thomas, had been deceived by an imposter, and had in turn misled the whole tribe of theologians and canonists who followed him. On the one hand, the Jesuits, including even such a scholar as Labbe, while giving up the pseudo–Isidorian decretals, manifested their resolve to still cling to St. Cyril. In Italy, as late as 1713, Professor Andruzzi of Bologna cited the most important of the interpolations of St. Cyril as a conclusive argument in his controversial treatise against the patriarch Dositheus (Johann Joseph Ignaz von Döllinger, The Pope and the Council (Boston: Roberts, 1870), pp. 233-234).
The forgeries were/are a fact of history. They were used by popes, knowingly or not of their authenticity.
-
I find it suspicious that, as the original post was a refutation of Orthodox arguments, you change the topic to focus on something unrelated, yet playing into the arguments in favor of the eastern schismatics, even going so far as to echo their talking points.
I called LeDeg out earlier for having praised John Pontrello, the Orthodox schismatic/heretic.
https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/john-pontrello-responds-to-ladislaus/msg913918/#msg913918
He had earlier claimed that Pontrello "raises some some very good points that have not been adequately answered by the traditional clergy."
https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/the-impossibility-of-sedevacantism/msg910722/#msg910722
-
LeDeg, you wouldn't happen to be John Pontrello, would you? At the very least you seem to follow his blog closely, since you immediately pointed out when he issued his attack against me.
You claimed that Pontrello made some "very good points" that have not been adequately address by Traditional Catholics, admit to having read his (heretical/schismatic) book, seem to be a close follower of his blog, and now this thread?
I see that Pontrello still has a tab page dedicated to me, on which he only puts his ignorance on display.
(https://i.ibb.co/zrfmnYH/pontrello.png)
-
LeDeg was involved in another thread a few months back, which was anti-papacy. Your suspicions are justified.
Yes, I posted links above.
-
In the middle of the ninth century—about 845—there arose the huge fabrication of the Isidorian decretals…About a hundred pretended decrees of the earliest Popes, together with certain spurious writings of other Church dignitaries and acts of Synods, were then fabricated in the west of Gaul, and eagerly seized upon Pope Nicholas I at Rome, to be used as genuine docuмents in support of the new claims put forward by himself and his successors.
[snip]
The forgeries were/are a fact of history. They were used by popes, knowingly or not of their authenticity.
LeDeg, you have lost all credibility. Your response is a virtual cut and paste from the following virulently anti-Catholic website: https://christiantruth.com/articles/forgeries/
In fact, that site has a whole section devoted to attacking Catholicism, the papacy, etc: https://christiantruth.com/articles/category/roman-catholicism/
Incredible.
And your source relies heavily on Johann Joseph Ignaz von Döllinger, who was an ardent opponent of the papacy, specifically as defined at Vatican I, he was excommunicated, involved with the Old Catholics, and died refusing to be reconciled with the Church. He abused his status as an historian and a priest to undermine the papacy and its charisms. He has zero credibility when it comes to anything related to the papacy.
I don't for a minute think you're a traditional Catholic, but rather a mole who seeks to undermine and sow doubt and confusion. This bears out when your previous posts are reviewed, as well.
-
Rome has actually relied upon these quite heavily. The authenticity being unknown to St Thomas Aquinas, he relied upon these for his refutation of the Greeks in regards to the papacy, specifically St Cyril. This was the basis for the Catechism of Trent, with I believe, 11 citations that have since proved to be forgeries.
These forgeries also played a significant part in Gregory VII's Dictatus Papae.
Even if they were forgeries, the ideas and arguments would still stand if they are speaking the truth against an error which may or may not have been held by anyone.
-
Perhaps that is why the Lord spared St. Thomas from ridicule at the Second Council of Lyons, even though his arguments would have been sound regardless of if he was using forged sources without any fault of his own. It came to St. Bonaventure to resolve things at least for a time with the Eastern Orthodox. Both saints being good and close friends died within months of each other and could laugh at our quibbles over these things in heaven.
-
The book that many of your provided quotes are from is from Johann Joseph Ignaz von Döllinger's The Pope and the Council, which was an attack on the Papacy and Vatican I.
As a reminder, Döllinger was excommunicated because of his intransigent opposition to Vatican I and it's definition of Papal Infallibility.
If you had even a shred of intellectual honesty, or even basic Catholic sense, you would looked at your sources before taking them as Gospel and using them in this manner.
If anyone wants to see the kinds of sources LeDeg is using to bolster his argument, you can check out Döllinger's book here: https://archive.org/details/popecouncil00dl/page/n3/mode/2up
-
LeDeg, you have lost all credibility.
...
Incredible.
IMO, he needs to explain why he continues to attack Catholic dogma on the papacy.
LeDeg, are you in fact John Pontrello?
Without a reasonable explanation, he should be banned as a pertinacious heretic, since he's been corrected on this matter repeatedly.
-
I don't for a minute think you're a traditional Catholic, but rather a mole who seeks to undermine and sow doubt and confusion. This bears out when your previous posts are reviewed, as well.
I'm beginning to think that he's either John Pontrello himself or else someone associated with him.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrypAPnQPOQ
This was a really strong video and in my opinion is worth your time. More ammunition against the eastern schismatics.
.
Who are these guys? The guy wearing a baseball cap on backwards while talking about theology ... seriously??! He looks like Bazooka Joe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bazooka_Joe)! :laugh1:
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/90/9f/d4/909fd4e613bc8e10d14d80ff6f6e1151.jpg)
-
Who are these guys? The guy wearing a baseball cap on backwards while talking about theology ... seriously??! He looks like Bazooka Joe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bazooka_Joe)! :laugh1:
Yeah, there seems to be a trend toward "trailer park theology" in modern social media. Long gone are the days of brilliant and dignified clerics being on the air representing Catholic theology. Sadly, given the state of modern seminaries, the Trailer Park Theologians are probably more qualified than most "priests" to speak about theology.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/65/Trailer_Park_Boys_-_The_Movie_%282006%29_theatrical_poster.jpg)
These are the top theological minds in the Conciliar Church.
(https://dz9aqlfbnvif7.cloudfront.net/uploads/show/1/mega_Trailer_Park_Boys_Show.jpeg)
-
Here are 15 Early Church proofs of the Primacy of Peter/Papal Supremacy to share with Orthodox/Trads tempted to lapse: https://reasonstobechristian.com/f/15-early-church-proofs-of-petrine-primacy-or-roman-supremacy
1. Pope St. Clement demonstrates Universal Jurisdiction even before St. John the Apostle’s Death!
Even Protestant Historians marvel at how Pope St. Clement exercised Universal Jurisdiction before the Last Apostle had passed away! Here is the CE (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm): "If any man", he says, "should be disobedient unto the words spoken by God through us, let them understand that they will entangle themselves in no slight transgression and danger" (Ep. 59). Moreover, he bids them "render obedience unto the things written by us through the Holy Spirit". The tone of authority which inspires the latter appears so clearly that [Protestant Historian J.B.] Lightfoot did not hesitate to speak of it as "the first step towards papal domination" (Clement 1:70).
Thus, at the very commencement of church history, before the last survivor of the Apostles had passed away, we find a Bishop of Rome, himself a disciple of St. Peter, intervening in the affairs of another Church and claiming to settle the matter by a decision spoken under the influence of the Holy Spirit. Such a fact admits of one explanation alone. It is that in the days when the Apostolic teaching was yet fresh in men's minds the universal Church recognized in the Bishop of Rome the office of supreme head.”
2. St. Ignatius of Antioch – a Petrine See – teaches that the Roman Church presides over the brotherhood in charity.
The CE continues: “A few years later (about 107) St. Ignatius of Antioch, in the opening of his letter to the Roman Church, refers to its presiding over all other Churches. He addresses it as "presiding over the brotherhood of love [prokathemene tes agapes]”
Orthodox Priest Fr. Nicholas Afanasieff admits (http://www.golubinski.ru/ecclesia/primacy.htm): “Unity of faith still reigns within the Orthodox Church, but without union in love; and neither exists between the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Churches. Why is this? Surely because the mind of the Church has become unaware that the Church of God should be directed by a local church, one church among all the others. They all possess catholicity; but priority of authority, by giving witness about events in the Church’s life, is something that belongs only to the church “which presides in love.” [2]
3. St. Irenaeus of Lyons – familiar with the Tradition of both East and West – declares that every local Church must agree with the Roman Church because of Her Superior Authority
Saint Irenaeus most plainly teaches: “the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre-eminent authority” [3]
An astonishing early proof of Roman Primacy long before anyone even spoke of the Church of Constantinople or other local Churches. That local Church, of Constantinople, and every other local Church, as Fr. Afanasieff mentioned in point 2, and St. Irenaeus teaches here most explicitly in point 3, must be in agreement with the Church of Rome, on account of the latter’s pre-eminent or Superior Authority. Here you have it, as clearly as words can make it, that the Early Church recognized the Pre-Eminent Authority of the Roman Church.