Dialing Down the Papacy

[Tomyris]

Incorrect - the Church has never wavered on the teaching that there is no salvation outside the Church, but has rather clarified what that has meant. And the Catholic Church then and now continuously teaches the truth, and this is a truth infallibly defined by the Pope - it has not and will not reverse its position on this, and it ought not to.

The key word there is “can” be saved - invincible ignorance does not invalidate the teaching of the church just because God, in his mercy, leads some non-Catholics to his side.

I am not about to tell Catholics what they believe about the papacy. Or get drawn into an argument about what it means to Catholics.

 

[Spelf]

I am not about to tell Catholics what they believe about the papacy. Or get drawn into an argument about what it means to Catholics.

It’s not a subjective thing. That’s one of the great importances of the Church - it makes definitive teachings.

 

[thenobes]

Good point!

Bishops and local synods should teach and pastor their flocks–that’s why they exist by the will of God. The papacy, on the other hands, exists to serve unity–when the decisions of bishops or local synods are harmful to unity, including of course the unity of faith, or where the faith or the common good of the Church requires a uniformity of discipline, then Rome should take the necessary action.

It’s like what St. Gregory says in one of his letters:Originally Posted by Pope St. Gregory the Great

for, as to his saying that he is subject to the Apostolic See, if any fault is found in bishops, I know not bishop is not subject to it. But when no fault requires it to be otherwise, all according to the principle of humility are equal.

Perhaps it could be worked out with the Orthodox an understanding that if the Pope goes around a bishop, the bishop is assumed to be at fault in some manner? Or the fault ought to be shown first?