Papal Infallibility/Supremacy and Eastern Orthodoxy

[Hesychios]

… the doctrine of Papal Infallibility is itself dogmatically defined by the First Vatican Council and, by Catholic doctrine, can never be recanted…

I don’t get it. The dogma is as clear as a bell, plainly written in direct language.

What is there to clarify? I can’t believe anyone could even suggest that.

Assuming clarification to the point of recantation is possible is like thinking the church can change it’s teaching.

 

[mardukm]

I don’t get it. The dogma is as clear as a bell, plainly written in direct language.

What is there to clarify? I can’t believe anyone could even suggest that.

Assuming clarification to the point of recantation is possible is like thinking the church can change it’s teaching.

The dogma on its own is not clear as a bell, that is why there is an Apostolic Constitution attached to it. If one wants to understand the dogma, one needs to read the Apostolic Constitution as well. The dogma and the Apostolic Constitution comprises the ENTIRE DECREE.

Did the Nicene Council propose dogmas that were “clear as a bell?” It would be foolish to claim it did, because history records that the Second Ecumenical Council had to be called to clarify her decrees. And did Chalcedon propose dogmas that were “clear as a bell?” Apparently not clear enough, since the Sixth Ecumenical Council had to be called to clarify it.

Blessings

 

[sidbrown]

I don’t get it. The dogma is as clear as a bell, plainly written in direct language.

What is there to clarify? I can’t believe anyone could even suggest that.

Assuming clarification to the point of recantation is possible is like thinking the church can change it’s teaching.

Yes. It seems so. And of course there is the Papal Bull Unam Sanctam (1302):
“Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely
necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman
Pontiff.”

 

[Mickey]

One of intentions of the dogma of papal infallibility was actually to curb such papal excesses.

The real “excesses” started to manifest themselves around the time of
Pope Nicholas I. Papal Infallibilty did nothing to curb such excesses–it was quite the opposite.

St Photius the Great pray for us!

 

[diggerdomer]

I don’t get it. The dogma is as clear as a bell, plainly written in direct language.

What is there to clarify? I can’t believe anyone could even suggest that.

Assuming clarification to the point of recantation is possible is like thinking the church can change it’s teaching.

I mean, compare what Vatican I taught (which was incomplete) with what Vatican II taught regarding infallibility. Clearly, Vatican II did not simply restate Vatican I. Does that help?

 

[diggerdomer]

Yes. It seems so. And of course there is the Papal Bull Unam Sanctam (1302):
“Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely
necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman
Pontiff.”

The Church clearly does not teach now what that Bull taught in its time. Thank goodness.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother diggerdomer,

The Church clearly does not teach now what that Bull taught in its time. Thank goodness.

I don’t think we need to reject the statement wholesale. If one understands that the Latin Church believed at that time that it was the only orthodox, catholic Church in existence, then it is natural to expect that everyone must be subject to the Roman Pontiff. In other words, being subject to the Roman Pontiff would be equivalent to being subject to the Truth. And there’s nothing wrong with being subject to the Truth. Besides, Unam Sanctam clearly took into consideration the mitigating factor of invincible ignorance.

What the Church rejects, a rejection which V1 affirmed, were the political connotations and aspirations of Unam Sanctam. Does the authority of the Pope extend into the affairs of secular governments? V1 resolutely denied such a possibility.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[diggerdomer]

Dear brother diggerdomer,

I don’t think we need to reject the statement wholesale. If one understands that the Latin Church believed at that time that it was the only orthodox, catholic Church in existence, then it is natural to expect that everyone must be subject to the Roman Pontiff. In other words, being subject to the Roman Pontiff would be equivalent to being subject to the Truth. And there’s nothing wrong with being subject to the Truth. Besides, Unam Sanctam clearly took into consideration the mitigating factor of invincible ignorance.

What the Church rejects, a rejection which V1 affirmed, were the political connotations and aspirations of Unam Sanctam. Does the authority of the Pope extend into the affairs of secular governments? V1 resolutely denied such a possibility.

Blessings,
Marduk

The Latin Church may have believed such at the time, but as the Catholic Church teaches today, the Orthodox faith is (are) true Churches. They are clearly not subject to the Roman Pope in the same way Catholics are, and yet according to Catholic teaching are true Churches.

Yes, you are right, I am not saying Catholics reject the statement wholesale, but rather that it is interpreted more fully, truthfully, completely, etc., in light of experience.