Papal Infallibility?

  • Thread starter Thread starter LoveJoyPeace
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

LoveJoyPeace

Guest
What if the pope said “ex cathedra” that the pope is never infallible?

-Orthodox (Love you 🙂 )
 
Can’t happen. Truth is truth. The Church is infallible because Christ is infallible. Ecumenical Councils exercise this infallibility. The Church has always recognized this. The First Vatican Council infallibly defined that the Pope can also, under certain very limited circumstances, exercise the Church’s charism of infallibility.
 
Exactly! Infallibility isn’t something the Pope can just whip out of his cloak and bludgeon the world with. It’s very specific 😑
 
Last edited:
Didn’t the first Vatican Council happen after the schism in 1054?
 
Yes. I was answering from a Catholic perspective. The First Vatican Council is binding for Catholics. I realize that neither the Eastern nor Oriental Orthodox recognize it’s authority.
 
Even the POpe cannot deny or change Sacred Tradition and the Dogmatic teachings of the Magisterium

God Bless you,
Patrick
 
Unfortunately, Papal Infallibility was not a belief of the early church, which means that this is not Sacred Tradition.
 
LoveJoyPeace said:
What if the pope said “ex cathedra” that the pope is never infallible?

-Orthodox (Love you 🙂 )
Click to expand...
It couldn’t happen. It would be like you or I formally denying any dogma of the faith. Soon as we formally reject a dogma de fide , we’re outside of the Church. An ex cathedra declaration would have to be based on a teaching being challenged or called to question. A Pope cannot challenge an infallible teaching of a Pope and his Council, that’s already been declared infallible. He therefore would not be able to speak ex cathedra on the matter for this reason if he himself rejects an infallible teaching.
 
LoveJoyPeace said:
What if the pope said “ex cathedra” that the pope is never infallible?

-Orthodox (Love you 🙂 )
Click to expand...
Bishop Gasser (at Vatican I) noted that Papal authority:
1. is not personal: not as the person, but as the role of Supreme Pontiff, not because of the authority of the Supreme Pontiff, but due to the assistance of the Holy Spirit when acting in that role as supreme judge in matters of faith and morals.

2. is not separate: not apart from, or opposed to, or set over against the entire Church, even though the promise of Christ of the aid of the Holy Spirit to the role of sucessor of Peter in matters of faith and morals is, in a sense, different than that of the indefectability and infallibility in truth promised to the entire Church.

3. is not absolute since absolute authority belongs to God alone and it is restricted by the subject: what must be accepted or rejected of faith or morals.
Click to expand...
See The Gift of Infallibility, Gasser, O’Connor, pages 44-50. This is the book on the relatio of Vatican I prior to the vote.
 
During the Vatican Council I in which the dogma of Papal infallibility was pronounced, there were only two Latin bishops who voted against it. They were the bishop of Arkansas and a bishop of Sicily. Also, the Melkite Patriarch voted against it as well. However, they all accepted it after it was declared dogmatically. Their main concern was that speaking “ex cathedra” would be used in areas other than faith and morals. Basically, they wanted better wording instead of a blanket statement. They did get what they wanted, but only after the vote.
 
I’m confused. This was still after the schism. It seems this was never an actual doctrine of the church beforehand, and was a later development, not something that was “done away with” in the original Orthodox Christian faith. It seems it was not even doctrine of the RCC until decades later.
 
Than you Friend,

By your comments, I take because it was not yet defined?

Sacred Tradition stems from BELIEFS, that normally are not defined until seriously challenged.

God Bless you,
Patrick [love your POST-name]
 
po18guy said:
Silly question. Why would someone even think this up?
Click to expand...
Exactly!
But this more than silly questions and it’s queer, based on sarcastic, beyond any reason following conclusions, I hear sooo often.
All who ask, never really got any serious information about Papal Infallibility. If the Pope says: “tomorrow it will rain” and then it doesn’t, it’s got nothing to do with papal infallibility. But it’s so easy, that any child unerstands.
The Curch explains it in the RCC in it’s numbers 889 to 891 and 2035

In 891 it states:
This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.

Divine Revelation is God’s revealing of Himself in the Old Covenant, and later Jesus Christ’s teaching and doctrine.

Yours
Bruno
 
No. Because it was not even believed. It was never a belief of the original church, or in other words the modern day Orthodox Church (the RCC Latin Rite did not acknowledge the infallibility of the Nicene Creed, and added to it even though it was declared that nothing should be changed in the creed developed at the ecumenical councils, so it cannot be claimed that the RCC is the original church). It (papal infallibility doctrine) is the main problem the Orthodox Church has with the RCC at this point, actually. If it was a belief of the early church surely it would be a point of commonality between the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches.

(Still love my Catholic brethren, just a few points of disagreement) 🙂
 
So essentially the pope is infallible whenever he happens to be right? That is, by definition, not infallibility
 
LoveJoyPeace said:
No. Because it was not even believed. It was never a belief of the original church, …
Click to expand...
Well, unless you have evidence of your position, I’ll read to you some of the Fathers of the Early Church:

Pope Clement I

“Owing to the sudden and repeated calamities and misfortunes which have befallen us… Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret… If anyone disobeys the things which have been said by him [God] through us [that you must reinstate your leaders], let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger… You will afford us joy and gladness if being obedient to the things which we have written through the Holy Spirit, you will root out the wicked passion of jealousy…” (Letter to the Corinthians 1:1, 58:2-59:1,63:2[A.D.80]).

Clement declares that God is speaking through him.

Irenaeus of Lyons

“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [189 AD]).

Why must other churches agree with the Church of Rome if that Church is teaching error?
(Still love my Catholic brethren, just a few points of disagreement) 🙂
Click to expand...
No problem. It is love which leads us to correct what we perceive to be your errors. Otherwise, why would we bother?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top