What makes a pope a true pope?
#21
(05-05-2010, 09:11 AM)INPEFESS Wrote: This is not relevant to this discussion. We are talking about St. Hypathius treating Nestorius as a heretic before he had been condemned by the Church.

The thesis what you should prove that the exact definition of the nature and person and its application to the double nature of Christ under one divine Person was well know and divulgated in the Church so Nestorius knowingly denied the teaching of the Church. The definition in the Catholic Encyclopedia is clear: willing contradicion of the teaching of (Christ himself) or the Church. So please prove the premisse: there was clear teaching about the human and divine nature of Christ in hypostatic union of the Second divine Person.

Nestorius accepted either the divine and human nature of Christ but denied that the unity os so close that the mother of the human nature is rightly called Theotokos: mother of God.  He strictly adhered to the TRADITION, no one can be above God, the Mother is above her child, and so no one can be the Mother of God.

We know that Nestorius was in error, only because the Council of Ephesus yje College of bishop under the pope said so. This is matter of faith, and no one wrapped it out before the Council, so you cannot condemn Nestorius because he did not knew it previously. However the disobedience of the Magisterium is sin, well defined by the Church, and also well defined that only subsequent popes can denounce the decision of popes, in such subject the proper name of the laity (and people outside of the proper jurisdiction) is shut up.


Reply
#22
(05-05-2010, 04:05 PM)glgas Wrote:
(05-05-2010, 09:11 AM)INPEFESS Wrote: This is not relevant to this discussion. We are talking about St. Hypathius treating Nestorius as a heretic before he had been condemned by the Church.

The thesis what you should prove that the exact definition of the nature and person and its application to the double nature of Christ under one divine Person was well know and divulgated in the Church so Nestorius knowingly denied the teaching of the Church. The definition in the Catholic Encyclopedia is clear: willing contradicion of the teaching of (Christ himself) or the Church. So please prove the premisse: there was clear teaching about the human and divine nature of Christ in hypostatic union of the Second divine Person.

Nestorius accepted either the divine and human nature of Christ but denied that the unity os so close that the mother of the human nature is rightly called Theotokos: mother of God.  He strictly adhered to the TRADITION, no one can be above God, the Mother is above her child, and so no one can be the Mother of God.

We know that Nestorius was in error, only because the Council of Ephesus yje College of bishop under the pope said so. This is matter of faith, and no one wrapped it out before the Council, so you cannot condemn Nestorius because he did not knew it previously. However the disobedience of the Magisterium is sin, well defined by the Church, and also well defined that only subsequent popes can denounce the decision of popes, in such subject the proper name of the laity (and people outside of the proper jurisdiction) is shut up.

You need to read the words that I type. Please do not set up strawman to change the subject. St. Hypathius knowingly, willingly, and deliberately did not pray for the Patriarch in the Canon. That (what you would call) 'schismatic act' did not seem to frustrate his canonization.
Reply
#23
Good luck, INPEFESS...

:fish:
Reply
#24
(05-06-2010, 09:40 PM)3Sanctus Wrote: Good luck, INPEFESS...

:fish:

I'm hoping that glgas will profit from being on this forum, even if it be to understand that, as he so often teaches others, we all have a conscience we are obliged to follow. We have to use our consciences to avoid evil, and there aren't as many traditionalists with malicious intent as he seems to think. Not everyone who questions obedience to a higher authority is doing something against humility.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)