Papal Infallibility Roundtable

  • Thread starter Thread starter ConstantineTG
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ghosty said:
It’s historical fact that the Dogma of Papal Infallibility comes from Vatican I
Click to expand...
Yes. It seems that Pius IX and the ultramontanists had a plan.
Ghosty said:
The only other dogma that was declared by Papal Infallibility was the Immaculate Conception
Click to expand...
Okay. So according to you…we have one official and one retro-active. I would like to see if there are any other opinions on this forum.
 
Mickey said:
Yes. It seems that Pius IX and the ultramontanists had a plan.
Click to expand...
I dunno, it was a long, long time before PI was declared.
Okay. So according to you…we have one official and one retro-active. I would like to see if there are any other opinions on this forum.
Click to expand...
I doubt it, but we’ll see. 🤷

Peace and God bless!
 
Mickey said:
Yes. It seems that Pius IX and the ultramontanists had a plan.
Okay. So according to you…we have one official and one retro-active. I would like to see if there are any other opinions on this forum.
Click to expand...
Unam Sanctam, anybody? (there goes ecumenism).
 
Hi, Hesychios,

Interesting - you have tried to totally undercut the workings of the Holy Spirit to protect the Chruch founded by Christ on Peter. You will note that there is nothing in or about the Papal States that is a matter of Faith and Morals - and that is what Papal Infallibility is based on.

God bless
Hesychios said:
The other one was before the power was recognized by the council of 1870.

Luckily for that Pope, he had a very long reign, and in his later years he was able to see that he needed to do something to formalize that power before it was too late. I think perhaps it was the coming dissolution of the Papal States that alarmed him most, and with that the possibility that bishops of Rome would follow who did not think like him.
Click to expand...
 
Hi, Mickey,

Ghosty is correct. The Immacualte Conception is the only one since Papal Infallibility was declared.

For additonal information, refer back to Ghosty’s post 226 which gives an excellent explanation on Papal Infallibility.

God bless
Mickey said:
Yes. It seems that Pius IX and the ultramontanists had a plan.
Okay. So according to you…we have one official and one retro-active. I would like to see if there are any other opinions on this forum.
Click to expand...
 
Ghosty said:
No, I don’t believe Unam Sanctam was an ex cathedra statement, so Papal Infallibility wouldn’t apply. I could be wrong, though. 🤷
Click to expand...
Okay. Does anyone else think Una Sanctum to be an “ex cathedra” statement?
 
Mickey said:
There is no need to get snarky. I asked a question…please follow the guidelines.
Click to expand...
I agree that there is no need to get snarky.

As to your question: I don’t know if anyone else thinks that Una Sanctum is an “ex cathedra” statement. I certainly don’t know. And I certainly don’t care. I genuinely don’t understand the interest in parsing the teachings into accompanied, or not, by an infallible papal proclamation.

Hence my question to you: What would be the point of that? Why would anyone care?
 
dvdjs said:
I agree that there is no need to get snarky.
Click to expand...
Then please refrain.
dvdjs said:
As to your question: I don’t know if anyone else thinks that Una Sanctum is an “ex cathedra” statement. I certainly don’t know. And I certainly don’t care.
Click to expand...
Okay. You have given your opinion. I am interested to know. I have heard many comments about what is considered to be an infallible statement…and what is not.
 
dvdjs said:
Hence my question to you: What would be the point of that? Why would anyone care?
Click to expand...
Are you asking why people are concerned if a teaching is infallible or not?

Most likely because its infallible its non-reformable and must be believed, whereas if not it can be reformed and could possibly, though its extremely, unlikely be wrong or at least be subject to change.
 
Mickey said:
So according to you…we have one official and one retro-active. I would like to see if there are any other opinions on this forum.
Click to expand...
I believe I was told that the ‘Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma’ by Ludwig Ott listed considerably more, possibly 100+ infallible dogmas, however sadly I don’t have the book in my possession though I’ve got it on order, if it arrives any time soon I’ll have a look through it and see what I can find.

Also I don’t know if others have stated it, but it is possible for a document issued by a pope or for them to teach a teaching that is infallible whilst not ex-cathedra, this would be an example of the ordinary and universal magisterium.
 
Dear brother Don,

I have little time, so I have not read through the rest of the thread. If the gist of my response has already been covered, forgive me for any superfluous repetition.
dcointin said:
Thank you again for your thoughts on this important subject! I’d like to comment on something you wrote:

"Logic dictates that if the authority of the Church narrowed down to an Ecumenical Council is infallible for the sake of settling an issue of faith or morals, then the further narrowing of the authority of the Church to the head bishop if the body of bishops cannot solve the matter must also require infallibility. Remember, we are talking about the Faith of the Church universal.

Logic also dictates that if the body of bishops appeals to the head bishop to settle a matter of faith or morals for the Church universal, they are themselves recognizing that they are appealing to an authority that can actually settle the matter. That certainly implies infallibility."

It’s my understanding that in an ecumenical council the bishops of the Church do not vote on doctrine or morals, but rather affirm the tradition which was handed down to them by their predecessor.
Click to expand...
Actually, every bishop does vote in an Ecumenical Council. That is most readily evident in all the Councils, especially the Fourth and Seventh Ecum Councils. A vote is an exercise of the free will assertion of a bishop. Are you suggesting that the exercise of infallibility is a diminution of free will?
The body as a whole, after witnessing collectively to this tradition, then affirm unanimously the faith of the Church.
Click to expand...
The Faith of the Church is already reflected in the Ecumenical Council. There is no need for affirmation by the Church afterwards as we trust that the Holy Spirit works through an Ecum Council (the exact same reason that the V1 Decree on infallibility states that papal ex cathedra decrees are irreformible of their very nature - because they were given by the assistance of the Holy Spirit). Those who are faithful to Tradition will agree with the Decrees of an Ecumenical Council (considerations of misunderstanding notwithstanding), because the Holy Spirit works through the Ecumenical Council (unless you believe otherwise).
I’m not aware of any ecumenical council that voted on such a matter, found itself to be divided, then was forced to appeal to a higher authority. Can you comment on this?
Click to expand...
I believe this statement reflects an understanding of an Ecumenical Council that is different from the Catholic teaching. The official Catholic position (which is not the Absolutist Petrine view) is that an Ecumenical Council possesses supreme authority in the Church. There is no appeal to a higher authority, because the Ecum Council represents the highest authority. Absolutist Petrine advocates who claim that one can appeal to the Pope from the Decrees of an Ecumenical Council are misrepresenting Magisterial Catholic teaching. An Ecumenical Council by definition is the College of bishops in union with the head bishop. Absolutist Petrine advocates pretend that the Pope can judge an Ecumenical Council because they (like Low Petrine advocates) constantly seek to separate the head from the body.

The High Petrine view (the offical position of the Catholic Church) does not at any time separate the head from the body nor the body from the head. Your scenario does not make any sense to me because it appears to presume that there is an authority higher than an Ecumenical Council (which is already the combined authority of head and body). If you desire a theoretical discussion based on your assumption, perhaps you can approach an Absolutist Petrine advocate in the Apologetics forum.

Or perhaps I am misunderstanding your question?

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