^These are two of mine as well.
I can reconcile basically everything about Catholicism with what I am increasingly identifying as my Orthodox faith. I detest how watered-down the Novus Ordo is, but I still feel that it yields a legit Eucharist. A lot of the devotions in the Latin tradition I strike me as odd, but I can make sense of them and roll with them, perhaps with the help of a good explanation or two.
But as for Papal Infallibility, it seems murky at best as to when it’s actually been applied. My understanding of it is, “The Pope’s speaking infallibly when he talks all official-like and says something in line with the Tradition of the Church.” But with all the extra criteria that get added in, a lot of people say that the Pope has only spoken twice in recorded history, whereas others make up a way more massive list. The lack of agreement among Catholics as to when the Pope is infallibly speaking is pretty damning in my view.
And Papal Supremacy and Papal Universal Jurisdiction seem in my eyes to be completely against what everyone knows to be the history of the Church. The way Vatican 1 words those two things is impossible to get around. I understand that subsequent Popes have explained that their supremacy and universal jurisdiction are in terms of love, encouragement, advisement and checking in on how things are going, but that is not at all what I see Vatican 1 saying.
The idea that a Pope can’t be contradicted or overruled by an Ecumenical Council flies in the face of history, so I cannot possibly accept that. We’ve seen Popes being reviewed by Ecumenical Councils, and an Ecumenical Council has both condemned a Pope and forced another one to do an about-face on his position (I’m thinking Pope Vigilius and the Three Chapters controversy). And we also see Pope Victor changing his mind about excommunicating the Quartodecimians after a bunch of people reprimanded him for his actions. And let’s not forget Pope Damasus’ track record in going against St. Meletius of Antioch, backing his opponents and breaking off communion with the rest of Antioch. Even though the Pope had clearly shown he didn’t like Meletius, St. Meletius still presided over the First Council of Constantinople.
So no, I see neither evidence nor support for the ideas of Papal Supremacy or Papal Universal Jurisdiction–at least not how Vatican 1 explains them. If only what later Popes say on the matter was the dogmatic definition of these, and not the decrees of Vatican 1. If it wasn’t for the overly monarchical sense I get from these two dogmas, I might still be Catholic today. As it is now, everything’s in flux about whether or not I find my way back into communion with the Pope.
