Is Ecum Council needed if Pope is infallible?

[hazcompat]

IS THE HOLY SPIRIT INFALLIBLE?

peace

 

[hazcompat]

Sorry for yelling i’m new to the format.

peace

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Pakesh,

"(1)" is irrelevant.

That was my reaction too. But the idea was so ridiculous that I did not want to even entertain a response.

Btw, I am not sure if you are Latin Catholic - either way, thank you for your support of the High Petrine view.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Sorry for yelling i’m new to the format.

I think CAF is one of the few places on the I-net that does not automatically presume that caps means “yelling.”

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[hazcompat]

Thank you

peace

 

[hazcompat]

I am not lurking. I am learning.

peace

 

[hazcompat]

I am not lurking. I am learning.

peace

This schism will not scar the body of Christ.

deep peace to all.

 

[hazcompat]

Where is Alex?

peace

 

[beng]

I have yet to see how this is so. Mardukm has clearly shown the Catholic Teaching from the documents of Vatican I.

God Bless,
Pakesh

He makes papal infallibility depends upon the existing bishops. That is an error. And his theory about “‘active’ ordinary magisterium” is full of holes. For once, the see of Rome, the head of the ordinary magisterium, could be vacant for years.

Don’t be deceive by politeness and exhaustive quotations. With enough time (and he has that) anyone could do the same.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Beng,

He makes papal infallibility depends upon the existing bishops.

You make this statement not because I ever stated it, but because (1) you fail to distinguish between the Extraordinary Magisterium and the Ordinary Magisterium, and because (2) you fail to understand that infallibility is from God and God alone, not from any created thing (you seem to think that it is the Pope that gives the Church its infallibility, an error that the Fathers of Vatican 1 denied - I gave you the quote earlier).

And his theory about “‘active’ ordinary magisterium” is full of holes. For once, the see of Rome, the head of the ordinary magisterium, could be vacant for years.

But I’ve never denied that the head is necessary for the exercise of infallibility by the Ordinary Magisterium. All I’ve ever said is that the infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium does not depend on the Pope ALONE. If seems it is your logic that is full of holes.

Don’t be deceive by politeness and exhaustive quotations. With enough time (and he has that) anyone could do the same.

At least you admit that you are not polite, nor are able to supply any exhaustive quotations to support your error.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Pakesh]

Dear brother Pakesh,

That was my reaction too. But the idea was so ridiculous that I did not want to even entertain a response.

Btw, I am not sure if you are Latin Catholic - either way, thank you for your support of the High Petrine view.

Blessings,
Marduk

Mardukm,

I am indeed a Latin Catholic and I find the “Absolute Petrine View” to contradict what I have read and learned from Roman Catholic sources! It is really sad to me that there is a lack of understanding on what the Church teaches regarding Infallibility. Thank you so much for all of your incredibly informative posts. And not just “posts,” but posts that are backed up with citations of official Church Teaching.

And it does seem to me that other posters don’t recognize Ordinary Magisterium vis-a-vis Extra-ordinary Magisterium. If I could, I recognize a book on the subject titled “Saint Peter Lives in Rome.” The author covers that topic.

Thanks, and God Bless,
pakesh

 

[Pakesh]

Dear brother Beng,

At least you admit that you are not polite, nor are able to supply any exhaustive quotations to support your error.

Blessings,
Marduk

God Bless,
Pakesh

 

[gregdaly]

Hello All.

This infallibility thing is the toughest thing for me regarding the Catholic doctrine of the papacy. I don’t understand why ONLY the Pope could be infallible, when your own Church also teaches that the whole Church is infallible. It is very confusing.

I am searching for the true Church, so I hope you can help me out.

In Christ,
Greg Daly

 

[beng]

Dear brother Beng,

You make this statement not because I ever stated it, but because (1) you fail to distinguish between the Extraordinary Magisterium and the Ordinary Magisterium, and because (2) you fail to understand that infallibility is from God and God alone, not from any created thing (you seem to think that it is the Pope that gives the Church its infallibility, an error that the Fathers of Vatican 1 denied - I gave you the quote earlier).

Bottom line, you make infallibility depends upon the say so of bishops, which is an anathema. There really is no way around it no matter how you try.

But I’ve never denied that the head is necessary for the exercise of infallibility by the Ordinary Magisterium. All I’ve ever said is that the infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium does not depend on the Pope ALONE. If seems it is your logic that is full of holes.

It’s about the word “active,” which I have said is the crux of the problem.

There has never been any definition of an “active” ordinary magisterium. You created it to square it with your theory (so theoretically there will always one or some bishops who is/are orthodox so the pope could get a “consensus” [as an added note the condemnation of Pistoia implies that the magisterium [or is it the body of the Church, can’t recall] shall not be obscured about a general truth but they could be obscured about, complicated truth])

At least you admit that you are not polite, nor are able to supply any exhaustive quotations to support your error.

Blessings,
Marduk

Do you infer that the same way you infer from Pastor Aeternus to get your theory? That should explain something.

 

[beng]

Hello All.

This infallibility thing is the toughest thing for me regarding the Catholic doctrine of the papacy. I don’t understand why ONLY the Pope could be infallible, when your own Church also teaches that the whole Church is infallible. It is very confusing.

I am searching for the true Church, so I hope you can help me out.

In Christ,
Greg Daly

The infallibility of the Church consist of papal infallibility and the college of bishops [united with roman pontiff] infallibility. Both are separate. True, they seem redundant. But if you look at the governing of the Church since she’s founded, that’s how it is.

 

[gregdaly]

The infallibility of the Church consist of papal infallibility and the college of bishops [united with roman pontiff] infallibility. Both are separate. True, they seem redundant. But if you look at the governing of the Church since she’s founded, that’s how it is.

That doesn’t seem to make sense.

If the infallibility of the Church consists of “papal infallibility” and “college of bishops infallibility,” how can they be “separate?” Are you saying that the “infallibility of the Church” is separate from “papal/college of bishops infallibility,” or are you saying that “papal infallibility” is separate from “college of bishops infallibility?” If the former, it doesn’t make sense at all; if the latter, it still doesn’t make sense - because how do you separate two things that make up the whole without breaking the whole?

Can you please answer those questions?

Also, if they are separate, can you please also answer the following two questions for me:

1. Why are they separate?
2. What is the purpose of each kind of infallibility?

Thank you.

In Christ,
Greg

 

[gregdaly]

(2) “Papal infallibility” cannot be exercised apart from the Church. According to the Official Relatio of Vatican 1, which represents the OFFICIAL interpretation of the Decrees from that Council:
“The consent of the Churches is the Rule of Faith, which even the Pope should follow; and therefore before the definition he ought to consult the rules of the Churches that he may be certain as to the consent of the Churches…It is true that the agreement of the present preaching of the whole Magisterium of the Church united with its head is the Rule of Faith even for definitions by the Pope.”
Please see here for a recent thread related to this topic: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=561402
It is only 3 pages long and should be a quick read.

Here is the text from the V1 Decree on Primacy:
"The power of the Roman Pontiff is far from standing in the way of the power of the ordinary and immediate episcopal jurisdiction by which the bishops who, under appointment of the Holy Spirit, succeeded to the place of the Apostles, feed and rule individually, as true shepherds, the particular flock assigned to them. Rather, this latter power is asserted, confirmed, and vindicated by the same supreme and universal shepherd in the words of St. Gregory the Great: ‘My honor is the honor of the whole Church. My honor is the solid strength of my brethren. I am truly honored when due honor is paid to each and every one.’"

Wow! That’s very helpful. Thank you for that, mardukm! These are the very things that have concerned me about the Catholic teaching on the Pope. IF it is as your quotes indicate, then I can scratch that off my list of “Why NOT to be Catholic.”

BUT, it is obvious Beng, another Catholic, disagrees with you. And that gives me pause.

Beng, I looked through the thread, and you don’t seem to have responded to Mardukm’s first quote above. Can you please give a response? Thanks.

In Christ,
Greg

 

[Aramis]

Wow! That’s very helpful. Thank you for that, mardukm! These are the very things that have concerned me about the Catholic teaching on the Pope. IF it is as your quotes indicate, then I can scratch that off my list of “Why NOT to be Catholic.”

BUT, it is obvious Beng, another Catholic, disagrees with you. And that gives me pause.

Beng, I looked through the thread, and you don’t seem to have responded to Mardukm’s first quote above. Can you please give a response? Thanks.

In Christ,
Greg

A lot of US Roman Rite catholics have very warped views due to having been raised with a local catechism that was frequently wrong-by-omission, and in a few places, just plain wrong: the Baltimore Catechism.

It has lead to 3 generations of Catholics with warped views not representative of the official teachings, especially in regard to Infallibility and the nature of the priesthood. (Two areas where its wording was especially poor.) It also has lead to many rejecting the possibility of the Eastern Churches actually being Catholic, and denials of the authority of Rome to promulgate new editions of the missal.

The Popes do not issue dogmatic decrees willy-nilly ——— every one of them has been in consultation with the bishops of the church. Most have been, to be blunt, unsurprising affirmations of capital-T Traditions in response to heretical assertions to the contrary by popular movements.

 

[beng]

That doesn’t seem to make sense.

If the infallibility of the Church consists of “papal infallibility” and “college of bishops infallibility,” how can they be “separate?” Are you saying that the “infallibility of the Church” is separate from “papal/college of bishops infallibility,” or are you saying that “papal infallibility” is separate from “college of bishops infallibility?” If the former, it doesn’t make sense at all; if the latter, it still doesn’t make sense - because how do you separate two things that make up the whole without breaking the whole?

There are two ways infallibility could proceed from the Church. They are separate in a sense that the mechanism is different. Maybe it;s better to use “different” instead of “separate.”

Can you please answer those questions?

Also, if they are separate, can you please also answer the following two questions for me:

1. Why are they separate?

Because their mechanism is different. The result is the same (ie. infallible pronouncements).

1. What is the purpose of each kind of infallibility?

To arrive at an infallible pronouncement.

 

[beng]

Beng, I looked through the thread, and you don’t seem to have responded to Mardukm’s first quote above. Can you please give a response? Thanks.

In Christ,
Greg

Because we continue where we left off, which is not on this thread.

The error of mardukm is making papal infallibility depends upon current bishops.

Infallibility is a negative charism. Thus the pope must study what he’s about to pronounce infallibly. Mardukm proposes that in this process the pope must consult the bishops and get a “consensus” from them and in no way he should deviate from it. This is because he believe that the only way the Pope could understand the faith of the Church is via consulting the existing bishops. However that is not so. We have scripture, tradition, past doctrines, books (the regula fidei or rule of faith for Catholics are scripture and Tradition but books such as Summa Theologica could help). These are the tools that a pope might use to learn what the faith of the Church is. Mardukm implies that this is impossible. You could only know the faith of the Church by consulting existing bishops. Therefore, making papal infallibiliy depends upon the bishops say so which defeat the purpose of Pastor Aeternus.