>Interesting, although that is not how it is explained by the writings that we have of the time... You make it sound as if the synods acted on their own and merely INFORMED the Pope of their actions. Hardly...
But you will note that the Austinian quote is totally wrong. That was my main point. I have seen it flow from many even big name Catholic Apologists without a response. It is wrong and needs to be taken from the apologia, lest you be accused of knowingly throwing out falsehoods. And no, Rome has spoken the matter is closed is not the same as two councils have deliberated it and suggest that the Pope get on board. That is like saying that “Bill Clinton has spoken on welfare reform, the matter is closed.”
The exact quote “In this matter, two councils have already sent letters to the apostolic see, and from thence rescripts have come back. the matter is settled (causa finita est); if only the heresy would cease!” Rome is not an active part of the decision and is only the recipient of the rescripts. The Pope is just a rubber stamp, with nothing being said about his decision, just the councils.
As for the New Advent site, hey I can rewrite history to spin things any way I want to also. Does this mean anything? No it does not. Look to the original sources and stick with them. Thus erroneous traditions will not accumulate and you will stop misquoting poor Augustine.
Please, would you look up the good ‘Catholic scholar” for me and see how good he really is? All I find is praise in the Catholic spheres and I may not be able to tell if these are liberal sources or not...
>The words attributed to St. Augustine are shown above, and in context. What can we learn from this? That Roman Catholic scholars are not infallible. And that people of the 400’s highly regarded the position of the Pope and his decisions.
Scholars indeed are not infallible. Look to many of the Catholic writings on Luther, you will find people willing to fabricate things from whole cloth, and then they are echoed from the 1500’s until now, and quoted as near scripture! Not saying that any side is worse than the others, but that is why we stick to the original sources as much as we possibly can.
As for 4th century position of the Pope, that is still sitting on the basis of the old Imperial seat of power (Chalcedon canon 28). What has happened is the accumulation of more erroneous traditions piled on top of ceremony and pomp. All that is required for something to be messed up is time and people.
Point taken. It appeared that you were saying that the decision was already made and that calling the Apostolic See was an unnecessary formality. That doesn't seem to be the case. Thus, it seems the truth has fallen somewhere in between. After some reading because of your post, I have learned something new. Thanks, I will be more careful using that.
Scholars indeed are not infallible. Look to many of the Catholic writings on Luther, you will find people willing to fabricate things from whole cloth, and then they are echoed from the 1500’s until now, and quoted as near scripture! Not saying that any side is worse than the others, but that is why we stick to the original sources as much as we possibly can.
I agree, and I apologize for not being more careful. I do not read Latin and did not know enough of the particular history behind the condemnation of Pelagius. I assumed that those well known and oft-quoted words were his actual words. As you have said, both sides have quoted things out of context. On another site, someone quoted part of the old Catechism to state that the Church considered the Bible a dead letter. Naturally, out of context, but you can imagine the reaction to that.
As for 4th century position of the Pope, that is still sitting on the basis of the old Imperial seat of power (Chalcedon canon 28). What has happened is the accumulation of more erroneous traditions piled on top of ceremony and pomp. All that is required for something to be messed up is time and people.
Canon 28 doesn't tell us the position of the Pope rests on the Imperial seat of power - it adds Constantinople as an Apostolic See, none of which are superior to Rome. This canon was not accepted by Rome - "Apostolic See" suggests that the Apostles established them and there were no custom of apostlic establishments in Constantinople prior to 300 AD. The apostle Andrew is a late addition that magically appears to justify the term.
No matter what it "rests on", quite frankly, the point is the people of the time realized that the Bishop of Rome had a particular pride of place. Now, whether that is attributed to Matthew 16 or the capital of the Imperial Empire, I don't see that as a major concern, since Jesus didn't give specific instructions to the Apostles on running ecclesiastical governmental affairs once He ascended. It appears that the Church, though, believed that what happened was indeed being sanctioned from above, and the common person believed that, as well.
I wonder what would have happened if the Apostolic See DISAGREED with the synods. What happened historically in such cases, such as the so-called "Robber Council"?
Regards