R
Rightlydivide
Guest
Ignatius does not say that.
- Status
M
Mickey
Guest
First off–supremacy/infallibility would be rescinded (and other innovations of post-schism Rome).
Decisions of a future council, (should one be necessary), would be ratified by the Pope of Rome. The Pope of Rome would not be able to circumvent nor replace the council.
F
Filius99993
Guest
If the pope isn’t infallible, then what is a Church to say is truly correct or incorrect? It leaves everything up to relativistic claims. I’m sorry, but what God left us the Pope to say what is right and wrong, and it isn’t our own choice to say what is and isn’t. What’s morally right stays morally right, as it has always been always correct. That’s the problem the Protestants are having.First off–supremacy/infallibility would be rescinded (and other innovations of post-schism Rome).
Decisions of a future council, (should one be necessary), would be ratified by the Pope of Rome. The Pope of Rome would not be able to circumvent nor replace the council.
M
Mickey
Guest
Sigh.
F
Filius99993
Guest
Cough.
M
Mickey
Guest
F
Filius99993
Guest
…not so much.
J
JMBNH
Guest
Irenaeus does, not Ignatius
St Cyprian of Carthage described the Bishop of Rome as in the Chair of St Peter from which no errors can come, and described the criteria for being in the Catholic Church as being in full communion with the Bishop of Rome
V
VARC
Guest
Cyprian opposed Pope Stephen over rebaptism of heretics. Obiviously he did not believe that “no errors” can come from Rome
J
jmcrae
Guest
This question was ultimately settled by Rome in St. Cyprian’s favour - that’s how we today know that St. Cyprian was right.
Obviously, individual Popes can hold things that are not really true as their personal opinions - nobody ever claimed they couldn’t. What they cannot do, however, because they are prevented from doing so by the Holy Spirit, is ever promulgate those personal opinions as infallible doctrine.
V
VARC
Guest
You ought to research these things before you just rush to instinctively defend the papacy.This question was ultimately settled by Rome in St. Cyprian’s favour - that’s how we today know that St. Cyprian was right.
Cyprian’s view was not adopted by Rome. His view was that all heretics must be rebaptized which was contrary to Stephen’s view and the current Roman view. My point was JMBNH was misrepresenting the faith of Cyprian because, regardless of who was actually right, Cyprian opposed the Roman bishop in this matter of faith. So obviously he did not believe the pope of Rome was infallible.
J
jmcrae
Guest
Or, he didn’t think a ruling had been made on the subject, and was expressing a personal opinion in the belief that he was free to do so on that issue.
Again, nobody thinks that the infallibility of the Pope means that you have to agree with the Pope in every detail.
V
VARC
Guest
Cyprian didn’t believe the infallibility of the pope. He was well aware of what the pope was teaching and he vigorously opposed pope Stephen on this issue of faith. You should stop trying to force modern papal beliefs on St Cyprian. He didn’t believe any of it and it is dishonest for someone to quote Cyprian as support for papal infallibility.Or, he didn’t think a ruling had been made on the subject, and was expressing a personal opinion in the belief that he was free to do so on that issue.
Again, nobody thinks that the infallibility of the Pope means that you have to agree with the Pope in every detail.
F
Filius99993
Guest
Wait, it wasn’t established until Pope Pius IX that the Pope was infallible. You have a good point, but right now, the pope is infallible.
A
Allyson
Guest
I’m sorry, but I have to say that you can not conform St. Cyprian’s actions to the modern idea you reference in the first part of your reply. St. Cyprian would not have been concerned with whether the bishop in Rome had made a ruling, but with whether there had been a consensus in the Church (between the sees) on the issue, which there wasn’t at that time.Or, he didn’t think a ruling had been made on the subject, and was expressing a personal opinion in the belief that he was free to do so on that issue.
Again, nobody thinks that the infallibility of the Pope means that you have to agree with the Pope in every detail.
I hope that saying so doesn’t get me into trouble I just think that it is important not to read modern thought patterns into the actions of long dead men.Of course I agree with you on the second part of your post
.God Bless,
R.
V
VARC
Guest
That’s odd. Are you saying Stephen wasn’t infallible? Or are you saying papal infallibillity wasn’t a part of the Catholic faith until 1870?
F
Filius99993
Guest
Infallibility doesn’t mean that the pope is always right, rather that mandates of the Church are such. And this wasn’t set in stone until, yes, 1870. That’s what I meant.
M
mschrank
Guest
I voted Hindu. I’m too skeptical to become an Atheist. The really scary thing is an irrational reality, which is closer to Eastern religion. So, if Catholicism is not true, then its going to have to be an irrational reality. shudder
Atheism is just so clean and neat. No way. Protestantism is made up.
The really scary thing is an irrational reality, which is closer to Eastern religion. So, if Catholicism is not true, then its going to have to be an irrational reality. shudderAtheism is just so clean and neat. No way. Protestantism is made up.
V
VARC
Guest
So I have 2 questions.
Was Stephen infallible?
Was infallibility a part of the faith when Cyprian opposed Stephen?
J
jmcrae
Guest
Of course Pope Stephen was infallible.
But St. Cyprian was not bound to hold to the infallibility of the Pope as an article of his faith, yet, because that fact (which has always been true) had not yet been fully discovered or defined, yet. So, it’s okay that he didn’t believe in it. Although he does seem to have had an inkling of it, at least at one point in his life.
- Status