Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2018 22:42:15 GMT -5
Apparently Pope Innocent X wrote a decree titled, "Sancti Officii," January 24, 1647, where in he anathematized as heretical any Christian who would believe, and propagate the idea Paul possessed his own Apostolic standing and authority. Apparently he obligated the faithful to believe and confess that Paul was under the authority of Peter. Apparently John XXII was the first to raise this issue in a bull, "Licet Iuxta Doctrinam," in 1327 and later Clement VI wrote a letter, "Super Quibusdam," in 1351 further espousing this notion.
I cannot find any of these letters on the Vatican archives or websites. None of the encyclicals, bulls or letters of Innocent X or Clement VI are even available. There is only one available for John XXII. I do not want to dig overly deep on this until I've had an opportunity to find and/or read these letters. Has anyone ever heard of these letters or this teaching being previously taught by the Church?
In 2 Corinthians 11:5, Paul stated, "But I do not think I am in the least inferior to those 'super-apostles'."
I also found a few writings that stated Pius X and Benedict XV repeated these teachings, but I cannot find anything related to either of these Popes stating this teaching.
These notes actually would go along with the post I had earlier (and probably put in the wrong area), regarding the crowd falling silent in Acts 15.
Anyway, does anyone hold to this teaching or ever heard it taught before? Did the Church later reverse themselves on this notion or do you agree with it?
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Feb 24, 2018 8:03:40 GMT -5
Paul is equal as Apostle ( which if you remember was actually quite a miraculous and unusual how it happened) Paul is not equal as to Authority as he was not Pope and Bishop of Rome. And Paul submitted himself to Peter for examination. Acts 11 & 15 Further although I never saw your above Citations if they are authentic then the issue is settled. It is a protty habit to pit Paul against Peter ( not saying your doing that) so there is precedence why God would want the matter clear to Catholics.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2018 10:51:48 GMT -5
Paul is equal as Apostle ( which if you remember was actually quite a miraculous and unusual how it happened) Paul is not equal as to Authority as he was not Pope and Bishop of Rome. And Paul submitted himself to Peter for examination. Acts 11 & 15 Further although I never saw your above Citations if they are authentic then the issue is settled. It is a protty habit to pit Paul against Peter ( not saying your doing that) so there is precedence why God would want the matter clear to Catholics. As I understand the teaching, it is that he also did not possess is own Apostolic authority or standing. It does not talk about him being Bishop of Rome or possessing parallel authority to Peter. That is not my understanding. However, remember we talk about apostolic authority when we talk about the church's 4 visible signs, we say it is One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic. It was not One, Holy, Catholic and Petrine. So there is a distinct apostolic authority that goes back to the apostles in whole which points to the visible sign of the Church, (who Paul called the "super apostles), of which he stated he was not inferior to, but was among. I do not understand the papal teachings were trying to say it is anathema to think Paul had Peter's authority in primacy over the others. As I understand it, the teaching is that Paul did not have his own Apostolic authority, i.e. similar to what James, John, Andrew, etc possessed. The concern here is that the papal documents may actually suggest the exact opposite of what you said, "Paul is equal as Apostle." Now, I think until we can find these documents and read them for ourselves, that would be a better way of really understanding the papal teaching.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Feb 24, 2018 13:41:00 GMT -5
It is speaking only of Papacy.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2018 13:54:13 GMT -5
It is speaking only of Papacy. Did you find the document? If so, supply the link. I am going to see if I can locate the source I read, which if I remembered was supplying the Latin translation into English
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Feb 24, 2018 14:35:51 GMT -5
Im talking about your document you posted.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2018 15:11:52 GMT -5
Ok. I was paraphrasing notes I had. I am going to give it a concerted effort to see if I can locate the original if it is even possible.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Feb 24, 2018 15:28:08 GMT -5
Vinny, The best way to learn your Faith is to start with the approved catechisms, then, if you want to swim in the deep water, move on to the approved dogmatic theology seminary manuals, and other approved books which explain points of the Faith. When one reads the Bible, it is also important to have an approved commentary or two handy to make sure you are understanding it correctly. This will give you the grounding to correctly understand the primary source documents. To learn the Faith by reading primary documents, and by lacking a thorough grounding in nuts and bolts of the Faith is an easy path to error. One needs to only look at the Feeneyites or their offshoots to see an easy example of this. This is from the Baltimore Catechism 1891 edition: This is from the Baltimore Catechism, 1941 edition: This is from A Manual of Catholic Theology, Based on Scheeben's “Dogmatik”, Joseph Wilhelm, D.D., PHD. And Thomas B. Scannell, D.D., (Emphasis added) Full book found HERE
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Feb 24, 2018 15:30:41 GMT -5
Common sense tells you this is what its about. Sts Peter and Paul have their own feast days for pitys sake!
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2018 15:25:28 GMT -5
This is from the Baltimore Catechism 1891 edition; This is from A Manual of Catholic Theology, Based on Scheeben's “Dogmatik”, Joseph Wilhelm, D.D., PHD. And Thomas B. Scannell, D.D., (Emphasis added); etc, etc. I certainly do appreciate all of the quotations, but the primacy of Peter is not in doubt and was certainly not the point of my thread. I found my notes, which is that it was from a book written by Charles du Plessis d'Argentré, Collectio judiciorum de novis erroribus, qui ab initio duodecimi saeculi post incarnationem verbi, usque ad annum 1735. Plessis went to seminary in Paris, and was made a doctor of Theology in 1700. He was ordained a priest just before (maybe 1699) and was Bishop of Tulle in the early to mid 1700's. I cannot find an English copy of this work. The title translates to, "Collection of judgments of new errors, which are not compatible with the word since the beginning of the twelfth century, until the year 1735." So I don't know if he is saying to believe Paul did not have his own Apostolic Authority was an error, or what Innocent X (John XXII, Clemet VI) wrote refutes the error of what some were saying about Paul's authority. I had read someones translation of what Plessis wrote in his work. Unfortunately Google does not have a translation of the work available and this is what I'd like to read for myself.
|
|