Is Ecum Council needed if Pope is infallible?

  • Thread starter Thread starter mardukm
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
beng said:
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.
Click to expand...
I wonder if you could provide a statement from me ANYWHERE reflecting what you claimed above.

Thanks.🙂

Blessings,
Marduk
 
beng said:
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.”
Click to expand...
So you admit your error.

There’s hope for you yet.🙂

Blessings,
Marduk
 
Dear brother Greg,
gregdaly said:
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.”
Click to expand...
My pleasure. But I take no credit. This is the teaching of the Catholic Church. I’m just repeating it.
BUT, it is obvious Beng, another Catholic, disagrees with you. And that gives me pause.
Click to expand...
Oh. He’s coming around (no doubt due to your own intelligent questions). He just now admitted his error that the infallibility of the Pope is a “separate” infallibility from that of the bishops or the Church. If you recall, that was one of the points in the OP about the differences between the Absolutist Petrine view and the High Petrine view.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
mardukm said:
I wonder if you could provide a statement from me ANYWHERE reflecting what you claimed above.

Thanks.🙂

Blessings,
Marduk
Click to expand...
Well, if I couldn’t find it, then you didn’t say it. If I do find it, then you said it.
 
mardukm said:
Oh. He’s coming around (no doubt due to your own intelligent questions). He just now admitted his error that the infallibility of the Pope is a “separate” infallibility from that of the bishops or the Church. If you recall, that was one of the points in the OP about the differences between the Absolutist Petrine view and the High Petrine view.

Blessings,
Marduk
Click to expand...
Of course it is separate. That is why on the one side we have papal infallibility and on the other side bishops [united with the pope] infallibility.

If you want to mix them up, then that would be another error.
 
beng said:
Well, if I couldn’t find it, then you didn’t say it. If I do find it, then you said it.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Good luck finding it. And if you can’t, can you admit you were wrong?

Blessings,
Marduk
 
beng said:
Of course it is separate. That is why on the one side we have papal infallibility and on the other side bishops [united with the pope] infallibility.

If you want to mix them up, then that would be another error.
Click to expand...
But you just admitted it was not “separate,” but merely “different.” Now, you are backtracking. I wonder if you have any concern at all for a poster who is trying to figure out if he should enter the Catholic Church. You seem to be concerned only about winning a losing argument, and it doesn’t matter if you might confuse a searching soul. You say one thing to one person, and then you say another thing to another person. If that is the best you can do, I pray brother Greg will see right through you.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
mardukm said:
But you just admitted it was not “separate,” but merely “different.” Now, you are backtracking. I wonder if you have any concern at all for a poster who is trying to figure out if he should enter the Catholic Church. You seem to be concerned only about winning a losing argument, and it doesn’t matter if you might confuse a searching soul. You say one thing to one person, and then you say another thing to another person. If that is the best you can do, I pray brother Greg will see right through you.

Blessings,
Marduk
Click to expand...
Didn’t you want an explanation about how I use the word separate? I gave it and then you’ve manage to accuse me of another thing?

And I said “different” to greg because he’s coming from another angle. And from that angle, using “separate” would be misleading, thus “different.” In short, I was trying to make him less confuse. But it seems, to you, I must have something sinister up my sleeve.
 
beng said:
Didn’t you want an explanation about how I use the word separate? I gave it and then you’ve manage to accuse me of another thing?
Click to expand...
Where did I ask for this “explanation?”
And I said “different” to greg because he’s coming from another angle. And from that angle, using “separate” would be misleading, thus “different.” In short, I was trying to make him less confuse. But it seems, to you, I must have something sinister up my sleeve.
Click to expand...
And what artful dodging can you come up with to distinguish brother Greg’s position from mine? What is this “angle” of which you speak?

Blessings,
Marduk
 
mardukm said:
And what artful dodging can you come up with to distinguish brother Greg’s position from mine? What is this “angle” of which you speak?

Blessings,
Marduk
Click to expand...
Wow, you do live on catholic.com eastern catholic board.

Didn’t you see that greg become confuse after I said that the two type of infallibility is separate?
 
beng said:
Didn’t you see that greg became confuse after I said that the two type of infallibility is separate?
Click to expand...
Aaand? Can you answer the question of what distinguishes brother Greg’s conundrum from my own position? I’ll be waiting. I found his questions to you very incisive. He forced you to admit the inconsistency of your opinion and the error of your “separate infallibility” view.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
beng said:
So you you didn’t need it. Instead you’re convince of YOUR OWN understanding of what I said and continue to mislead? If you wish…
Click to expand...
All I know is that you admitted your error and now are trying to backtrack. To justify the duplicity, you then pretend that there is a difference between brother Greg’s position and my own, yet you can’t p(name removed by moderator)oint such a difference.

Btw, we’re still waiting for the results of your search on what you claim I supposedly stated. What was that about being “convinced of YOUR own understanding…?”:rolleyes:

Blessings,
Marduk
 
beng said:
And that is why I said to use “different” instead of “separate.”
Click to expand...
Exactly. They are not separate, only distinct. So, can you stop avoiding the question? What is the difference between my and brother Greg’s positions? If you can’t respond, just say so.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
mardukm said:
All I know is that you admitted your error and now are trying to backtrack. To justify the duplicity, you then pretend that there is a difference between brother Greg’s position and my own, yet you can’t p(name removed by moderator)oint such a difference.
Click to expand...
I don’t know whether your position and greg is different or even the same.
Btw, we’re still waiting for the results of your search on what you claim I supposedly stated. What was that about being “convinced of YOUR own understanding…?”:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Blessings,
Marduk
Click to expand...
Well, if you said it, then you said it. If you didn’t then you didn’t. The same reasoning you have used. That will suffice without further search.
 
mardukm said:
Exactly. They are not separate, only distinct. So, can you stop avoiding the question? What is the difference between my and brother Greg’s positions? If you can’t respond, just say so.

Blessings,
Marduk
Click to expand...
I’m not concern whether your position is the same or not with that of Greg.
 
beng said:
I don’t know whether your position and greg is different or even the same.
Click to expand...
I guess we can wait for him to come back to clarify.
Well, if you said it, then you said it. If you didn’t then you didn’t. The same reasoning you have used. That will suffice without further search.
Click to expand...
Well, at least you admit you have no solid basis for your statements about what I supposedly said.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top