Catholic Q&A

[Eleventh Doctor]

The scientific community hasn't believed in Darwin's specific theory of evolution for centuries either. But what the majority of Christian's have believed since the beginning is that science and faith are not in competition and that God works with nature not in spite of it. This has been the case since St. Augustine.

It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation.

[Pound Foolish]

Eleventh Dr., is the fifth question, with the whole excommunication thing, about Pope Vigilius?

When Jesus built His church on Peter, He told him to "feed my sheep." Jesus flock would go on well beyond Peter's' time, so how could fulfill that command without a successor?

[Eleventh Doctor]

I had two questions unanswered. One was in regard to Pope Leo the Great, who did not wish the Fourth Council to be called but when it was anyway sent, as was the usual custom, legates to represent him. His tome on the issues before the Councils were weighed against the tome of St. Cyril of Alexandria and Leo's tome was declared orthodox on the merits of agreeing with St. Cyril, why would it not be the other way around?

The question about the Fifth Council was indeed in regards to Pope Vigilius who was in residence of Constantinople at the time of the Fifth Council but refused to attend and went so far as to issue a formal document forbidding it from occurring. Yet it went on anyway. The council actually struck Vigilius name from the diptychs, breaking communion with him. How could a legitimate council occur after having broken communion with the bishop of Rome?

[Pound Foolish]

I still haven't figured out the second one. But it seems the previous answer can easily apply to your other question. The Pope has top authority on spiritual matters. That's it. The Catholic church claims that and nothing else. Even so, the Pope tends to be given the respect he deserves. Your exceptions are still exceptions, not the usual.

Again, as to Vigilius, I'm having no luck with that. Not that I'm unsatisfied with what I've found, just that I haven't found anything though I'm trying.

[Eleventh Doctor]

The Catholic church claims nothing else? So you don't claim, for example, that the unity of the Church is rooted in the Bishop of Rome? That communion with the Pope is necessary to be part of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church?

Popular saying to the contrary the exceptions do not prove the rule.

Does that respect include universal authority on matter of Ecclesiology? Such as the final say on appointments of Bishops?

[Pound Foolish]

Yes, our unity is absolutely rooted in that. People, even people high up in the church, have ignored that a few times in the course of history.

But yes, the Pope only has permanent and unquestionable authority on spiritual matters. Everything else is just church politics.

[Eleventh Doctor]

The Eccumencial Councils though are major parts of Church History, they aren't just minor exceptions. So at the Fourth Council the pope was not treated as the permanent and unquestionable authority on spiritual matters, his tomes was declared orthodox by merit of agreeing with St. Cyril of Alexandria. Why wouldn't it be the other way around if the pope was the permanent and unquestionable authority on spiritual matters?

Likewise if the churches unity is rooted in communion with the pope then why is the Fifth Council considered legitimate if it was held by bishops not in communion with the pope?

These are not a few slip ups or exceptions, these are major events in the shared history of our church that defined the first 700 years of Christianity.

[jehoshaphat]

To the first point I would say that the teaching of St Cyril of Alexandria had already been declared valid by the previous council so the teaching of another were compared and both declared valid.

Too the second point I would say that though Vigilus condemned the council ast the time he later recanted and declared the council valid. I would also like to point out that only 7 western bishops were present and Emperor Justinian I called the council.

[Eleventh Doctor]

But that other was the pope, if he is the ultimate authority on spiritual matters why aren't his works the standard?

He recanted after the council threatened to excommunicate him, he didn't make the council valid. That council would have gone ahead and excommunicated him if he hadn't agreed with them, how does that show that unity in the church centers around the pope? Okay, only 7 western bishops were present and the Emperor called the council, what's your point? The pope was literally down the street from this council, he could have attended.

[jehoshaphat]

The point is that the form of councils had not been completely set in stone. It wasn't until the 11th century that the rules for a valid council were set out by the Roman Catholic Church. Too the first question, the pope has to be speaking ex cathedra and about faith or morals. And again at this point in time papal infallibility had not been declared.

[Eleventh Doctor]

11th century, convenient that was the exact point when our churches had broken communion. How were these rules set forth?

So papal infallibility was not alway a thing? When did it become a thing?

[Blitz]

I think one of the Gregorys issued several papal bull to increase his power that being one of them.

[jehoshaphat]

Papal infallibility was not officially declared until the First Vatican Council but it was widely held long for the in the Western Church. As for the first question I will have to look into it.

[Eleventh Doctor]

How longley held? And why just in the Western church?

[jehoshaphat]

Technically it was held from the beginning. But after the split it was held by the west just never explicity.

[Eleventh Doctor]

How do you know it was held from the beginning if it wasn't written about and the councils behaved like it didn't exist?

I mean to be perfectly frank to me the Catholic version of Christ to St. Peter goes like this. "You are Peter and on you I will build my rock, but you know not at Antioch which was your first and main bishopric but Rome for some reason. Also people aren't going to write about this explicitly or even really behave like they realize this, in fact during the first 700 plus years of the church when all the other major doctrines of the church are defined this won't really be discussed much but then like in 1100 after half the church breaks away because they think the bishop of Rome is abusing his power those churches accused of abuse will then explicitly state that the bishop of Rome is the universal bishop. Also from the beginning you'll have ultimate spiritual authority but you know not at the first ever council in Acts, just lay low for like 1,818 years then a council will totally recognize that you did in fact have it."

[jehoshaphat]

The Council of Jerusalem. Peter made the decision to not require gentiles to be circumcised. He clearly showed he had authority and power and the other apostles respected him and abided by his decision.

[Blitz]

*Blinks*
It was Peter AND James in a council meeting. The Bible only mentions them, but I bet that the other apostles and elders had a say in it. as well.

[jehoshaphat]

They had a say but Peter ultimately made the final decision regarding the issue. Eleventh this is the first example of the pope being the head of a council and the Church in general.

[Blitz]

Actually James finished the discussion.