Eastern Orthodoxy - question about infallibilityDo the Do the

  • Thread starter Thread starter joe370
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Peter_J said:
Not everything he pronounces is ex cathedra.
Click to expand...
I never claimed that. The fact that ex cathedra statements doe not require consent from the Church, regardless of how common or rare it is, is dubious.
 
ConstantineTG said:
I never claimed that. The fact that ex cathedra statements doe not require consent from the Church, regardless of how common or rare it is, is dubious.
Click to expand...
Well … maybe I got a little nitpicky regarding your choice of words. (You were asking for it by saying “Whatever he pronounces …”. :hey_bud:)

What I should have is what Vico said: *if *the pope said something that was against the rest of the church, then it would not be an ex cathedra statement. (I’m not convinced that he would necessarily “put himself outside the communion” thereby, but that’s a whole other bottle of worms.)
 
Peter_J said:
That seems a little harsh. Couldn’t he still be “in” but not have made an ex cathedra statement?
Click to expand...
It does seem harsh. The common thought of the bishops is that the Popes have not and could not make an ex cathedra statement while remaining in full communion with the Church, due to the protection of the visible Catholic Church by God. This is because it is a matter of the Papal office (munus) rather than personal opinion or personal sanctity.
 
Vico said:
No. There are presented within it irreformable definitions of the Church.
Click to expand...
So how can I believe a book which talks about infallibility if those statements about infallibility isn’t infallible? 😉
 
Peter, my point is this. On the dogmatic definition, it clearly states that the Pope’s infallible declarations are irreformable in and of by itself and without the consensus of the Church. Another book claims that the Pope can’t declare anything infallibly without the consensus of the Church. One is an infallible dogmatic declaration, the other is a theological opinion that is infallible. So which one am I supposed to believe? The Orthodox have always said that infallibility is wrong, and no one cares about what we say because we’re not infallible. So why are we supposed to take the word of a book from a writer who is not infallible, over the clear words of a dogmatic constitution?
 
ConstantineTG said:
So why are we supposed to take the word of a book from a writer who is not infallible, over the clear words of a dogmatic constitution?
Click to expand...
Well, the words may be clear in-and-of-themselves, but they are certainly misunderstood a heck of a lot. (I’ve lost track of how many times I’ve seen posts on this very forum – often from Catholics – saying “The pope is infallible whenever he speaks on faith and morals”, or words to that effect.)

But I see your point: Yes, you should take the word of a dogmatic constitution.
 
Peter_J said:
Well, the words may be clear in-and-of-themselves, but they are certainly misunderstood a heck of a lot. (I’ve lost track of how many times I’ve seen posts on this very forum – often from Catholics – saying “The pope is infallible whenever he speaks on faith and morals”, or words to that effect.)

But I see your point: Yes, you should take the word of a dogmatic constitution.
Click to expand...
How else are we to interpret those words? People smarter than myself believe there is no other way to interpret those words. I surely can’t come up with anything else.
 
ConstantineTG said:
How else are we to interpret those words? People smarter than myself believe there is no other way to interpret those words. I surely can’t come up with anything else.
Click to expand...
You mean about “faith and morals”? Vatican I listed 3 conditions, and said that a papal statement is ex cathedra, and hence infallible, if all 3 conditions are satisfied (not if any 1 of them is satisfied).

I find it striking (not to make it all about numbers) that we don’t know whether there have been any ex cathedra statements (most people say that there have only been two, but that’s another can of worms), although it is obvious that thousands if not millions of papal statements satisfy the “faith and morals” condition.

So maybe those “smarter” people aren’t as smart as you think. 😊 :cool:
 
Peter_J said:
You mean about “faith and morals”? Vatican I listed 3 conditions, and said that a papal statement is ex cathedra, and hence infallible, if all 3 conditions are satisfied (not if any 1 of them is satisfied).

I find it striking (not to make it all about numbers) that we don’t know whether there have been any ex cathedra statements (most people say that there have only been two, but that’s another can of worms), although it is obvious that thousands if not millions of papal statements satisfy the “faith and morals” condition.

So maybe those “smarter” people aren’t as smart as you think. 😊 :cool:
Click to expand...
No, about that the Pope’s infallible statements are irreformable in of by itself and not by the consent of the Church.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top