A trick question (papal infallibility)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Peter_J
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Mickey said:
Unum Sanctum says so.
Click to expand...
A was being a little facetious. Actually neither you nor Unam Sanctum are saying that you’re going to hell.

Unum sanctum asserts:

A. Anyone not subject to the Pope is going to hell.

You assert:

B. Orthodox Christians are not subject to the Pope.

If one assumes both (A) and (B), then the logical conclusion is that you and all other Orthodox Christians are going to hell. But neither you nor Unum Sanctum assert both (A) and (B).

P.S. I’m not sure if our conversation today is doing anything for anyone else, but it has greatly reinforced in my own mind the similarities between misunderstandings of Unum Sanctum and the misunderstandings of Papal Infallibility. (Try saying that 10 times fast.)
 
bpbasilphx said:
As a sidenote, the Assumption of Mary is not per se in the Bible, but then how did John see her in heaven clothed with the sun, the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars around her head (Revelation 12)?

The Eastern fathers deny that this is the Theotokos, as the woman of Revelation “cried out in pangs of childbirth”, and the Theotokos suffered NO pains when she brought forth Christ.
Click to expand...
My “utterly fallible” 🙂 interpretation of the bolded section above is:

Christ was “brought forth” in the whole “childbirth” of His earthly existence (life), and Mother Mary certainly DID suffer pains, and most likely “cried out” in her suffering, during her Son’s “coming out” (His earthly life).

That Mother Mary may not have had actual during-physical-birth pain is an over-narrowing of the description from Revelation.
 
Isa_Almisry said:
Good things are besides the point: any say she was the woman of Rev. 12.
Click to expand...
Sorry I am back here so late, Isa…
I would have 3 questions to ask you, then:
1-Have you read ALL the texts of ALL the Early Church Fathers? I can tell that I haven’t, alas!
2-It could be that none would explicitly refer to “the woman of Rev.12”, but wasn’t anything written about Mary’s having been crowned Queen of Heaven, Queen of the Angels, Queen of the World…? If not the Early Fathers of the Church, maybe some commentaries before the Schism between East and West?
3-Why do you demand that we find texts explicitly speaking of “the woman of Rev. 12” when she could have been spoken of (and written of) otherwise, implicitly?
 
Because in demanding such a thing, Isa, you actually sound more like a Protestant than an Orthodox, it seems to me. Demanding that the text would explicitly name “the woman of Rev. 12” and mention it in these terms… really!
Besides, any text that mentions that it isn’t Mary and can’t be Mary?
 
Sorry about this, friends, I know it may sound off-topic, but as I had said earlier, I had brought Rev.12 as an example of non-explicit teaching that still can be derived from some text in the Bible. Something, I think, was said about the use of Mt 16 as not being explicit enough to base the teaching of papal infallibility when teaching in matters of faith and morals, which is why I came up with the example of Rev. 12. Other than for this, I agree it would probably not be relevant to this discussion…
 
Peter_J said:
AIf one assumes both (A) and (B), then the logical conclusion is that you and all other Orthodox Christians are going to hell. But neither you nor Unum Sanctum assert both (A) and (B).
Click to expand...
So then you are saying that Unum Sanctum asserts that I am subject to the Pope whether I think so or not–hence I am saved?
 
bpbasilphx said:
As a sidenote, the Assumption of Mary is not per se in the Bible, but then how did John see her in heaven clothed with the sun, the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars around her head (Revelation 12)?

The Eastern fathers deny that this is the Theotokos, as the woman of Revelation “cried out in pangs of childbirth”, and the Theotokos suffered NO pains when she brought forth Christ.
Click to expand...
The “pangs of childbirth” might have to do with the dragon who was waiting to devour the child at birth? You have to stay in the context of what John is telling us in the book of Apocalypse (Revelation)…
 
Mary is also known to us as Our Lady of Sorrows, and whatever menacing her Son and later her other children was some suffering. Paul compared his own worries about the souls of his “children” (the faithful under his responsibility) to “pangs of labour” (“les douleurs de l’enfantement”, in the French translation). Maybe John had something like that in mind, too?
 
Mickey said:
So then you are saying that Unum Sanctum asserts that I am subject to the Pope whether I think so or not–hence I am saved?
Click to expand...
Well, technically, no it does not say that (remember that Unum Sanctum is an if-then statement).

But untechnically, for all intents and purposes yes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top