What official infallible declaration of any Pope on morals would you as a non-Catholic Christian object to and why?

[KathleenGee]

The context is that Jesus Christ instituted only one Church, not multiples, that contained full revelation of Christ to mankind.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Read Matt 16:19…Matt 18:18…and Jn 20:22-23. It is quite clear. St Augustine helps to explain it for us.

St John Chrysostom talks about the Apostle St John having the keys of heaven here:

For the Son of thunder, the beloved of Christ, the pillar of the Churches throughout the world, who holds the keys of heaven, who drank the cup of Christ, and was baptized with His baptism, who lay upon his Master’s bosom, with much confidence, this man now comes forward to us now.
St John Chrysosotom, Homilies on the Gospel of John, Homily 1.1

16:18 - 16:19. Seems clear to me Mick, you’ll have to explain what Christ was talking about about here.

For you are Peter[Rock] and upon this Rock[Peter] I will build my Church. Church[Christ] built on PETER. Is this not the correct english translation? Yes, we get Christ is the Cornerstone and the church, but its BUILT UPON WHO? …that would be PETER!

I will entrust to YOU [PETER] the Keys of the KINGDOM. The “is” who Christ is speaking to here since the conversation never breaks in verse. Again the YOU is Peter here.

And yes I get Jesus Christ is the cornerstone. But who did He build His church upon Peter right? Does it not specifically say [PETER] in verse 16:18?

Now there were other Apostles standing right there, but Christ didn’t say you guys, there was nothing [plural] said by Christ. He specifically stated [PETER] Could you please explain this?

BTW Matt 18:18 Is the “fraternal correction” of an error. Which leads one back to the Church which btw is build on “Peter”.

So where did the Apostolic Succession start in the EO?

So the Apostolic Succession which we do have from “Peter” on, which confirms Matt. 16:19 isn’t correct in the view of the EO?

Amazing how you skip over to the fraternal correction with the power to bind and lose and interpret this SS, but can’t acknowledge the clear written word of Matthew 16:19

And Saints we are talking about…Saints? Oh please we might as well be talking Fatima, Lourdes or St Padre Pio. And that would be by EO logic on other threads a joke. They carry no weight to the EO in these conversations. Why would that matter here?

BIBLE is what we talking here MIck, not Saints. Is Augustine or St John Chrysosotom in the Bible what year did they even come along? There is no Saint for the first 300 years of the Catholic Church that does anything but acknowlege the Primacy and Apostolic Succession in Rome. Apparently Ignatius, Irenaeus etc mean absolutly nothing. Augustine from after Constantinople in 354-AD we are talking? Wow, have anyone from before 300 that “DENIES” the Apostolic Succession in Rome and the Primacy?

And Apostolic Succession from Paul is the weakest arguement I have heard in Biblical debates. Pauls role is very clear in scripture. BTW, He’s still killing Christians while Peters converting 1000’s at Pentecost. The FIRST day of the Catholic Church. Is that even acknowledged in the EO? Or do we just breeze right past all “PETER” verse’s in the EO and just go with John and Paul?

John is with Peter and thats acknowledged nonetheless its doesn’t detract from the reality of what happened or how it came down.

When we say all the Apostles have equal authority, yes this is true, but that authority is through the Church that Jesus Christ built upon “PETER” which in fact is Jesus Christ. The fact that many are converted and church’s arrise in many areas through the Apostle’s and they are entitled to their respect and authority which is God given, doesn’t distract from Bible or Apostolic Succession. If there was NO ROME, it wouldn’t matter the Apostolic Succcession would continue were it is and through the charge given to “Peter” by Christ.

Seems we need to start at Square One here, its absolute that discussing 800-1500-AD doctrines is a utter waste of time if we do not agree on this point which in my opinion is heresy. The cherry picking of Infallible encyclicals and all else becomes a futile waste of time if in fact the EO actually believes this Protestant theory which BTW holds no water.

Let me put it to you this way, if in fact this is the thinking of the majority of the EO. It’ll be the 5th of never before there’s a communion.

Do you even have documentation of Apostolic Succession in the EO? Or does it die at Constantinople and then you go Sola Scriptura from their? I can’t even imagine how that would work. Please enlighten us.

You know what I would actually understand if we were having this conversation in 1500. They were out of there minds then. But Benedict? What is there to fear? You think he’ll send an army to Constantinople? The guys 5’2 and a candidate for the most humble Pope in History. And your actually focusing on “authority” and “jurisdiction”? The idea is “communion” Mick not “CONTROL”. Yet when there is fundemental misunderstanding of scripture there’s no sense in talking anything else but scripture until the problem is resolved.

God Bless, Gary

 

[rinnie]

Anna you misundersttood my exception big time.

I said that what part of the Popes statement do you disagree with.

Do you agree that there is no Salvation outside of Jesus Christ (CC) or not? You asked me if I agree with that saying and I told you I sure do.

Do you agree with it Anna? I said if you DO NOT agree with it prove him wrong. Thats all I said.

You asked me if there were any exceptions for People who do not hold that belief. And I said yes. Because according to the Pope if there are people who do not know the teaching through no fault of their own they cannot be held to it. That is what Pope John Paul II taught.

But that has NOTHING to do with the statement being TRUE.

The Statement is absolutely positively true!!

 

[rinnie]

Gary,
Thank you for posting Unam Sanctam.

For me, the main issue of concern in Unam Sanctam is as follows: “We declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” That would exclude even the Eastern Orthodox from salvation, would it not?

Other Popes made similar declarations.

Pope John XXIII:
"And you, venerable brothers, will not fail, in your teaching, to recall to the flocks entrusted to you these grand and salutary truths; we cannot render to God the devotion that is due Him and that is pleasing to Him nor is it possible to be united to Him except through Jesus Christ; and it is not possible to be united to Jesus Christ except in the Church and through the Church, His Mystical Body, and, finally, it is not possible to belong to the Church except through the bishops, successors of the Apostles, united to

Pope Pius XI:
“Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors.” (Pope Pius XI, Encyclical, Mortalium animos, January 6, 1928, The Papal Encyclicals, Claudia Carlen, I.H.M., McGrath Publishing Co., 1981, pp. 317, 318).

Gary and rinnie,

Is this an infallible teaching of the Catholic Church that “neither salvation nor the remission of sins” exists outside the Catholic Church–and it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff–no exceptions?

Peace,
Anna

Lets go back now Anna to what you said, Then you are saying that there is Salvation outside of the CC then?

All that, every single quote that you posted said there is no salvation outside of the CC.

All that is said, in order to have salvation they must be subjected to the RC or Roman Pontiff No Exceptions,

Now what part of that do you disagree with.

Please show me any Catholic Church that can possibly have a Valid Holy Orders without being connected to the RCC.

Pope John Paull II said any Church who has valid Holy Orders is united to the RCC by the bond which is the Apostolic Succession and a valid Eucharist,

The Pope said we are still in communion with eachother although it is not a perfect Communion.

Now once again prove the Pope wrong. Please show me how any Church can be the True Catholic Church that is not connected to the Apostles sent by Christ.

How can we be saved if we do not have the Valid Sacraments that is needed for our Salvation Anna.

I told you the only exveption is if someone does not know of the teachings of Christ. St Pau II l said that God will not hold us bound to something we do not know.

That is why Salvation if for everyone and the Apostles were sent to spread the good news all over the world.

Now please show me where the Pope is wrong is saying that in order to have a valid Holy Orders they must be united by Apostolic Succession and that means they have to be united to the RCC.

And as far as what Pope Pius XI said is you have to recognize the primacy of St. Peter…

 

[rinnie]

I always forget to post my source.

Here it is Anna.

IV.unicity & unity of the Church, 17

It is a teaching of Pope John Paull II I believe.

 

[Mickey]

16:18 - 16:19. Seems clear to me Mick, you’ll have to explain what Christ was talking about about here.

I posted a couple of Church Fathers who explained it for me, Gary.

Yes, we get Christ is the Cornerstone and the church, but its BUILT UPON WHO?

Eph 2:19-20
Now therefore you are no more strangers and foreigners; but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and the domestics of God, Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone:

So where did the Apostolic Succession start in the EO?

The Apostles.

BIBLE is what we talking here MIck, not Saints.

The last I heard, The Roman Catholics believe that the Church Fathers (part of Holy Tradition) help us to interpret Sacred Scripture.

Are you a sola Scriptura Roman Catholic?

And Apostolic Succession from Paul is the weakest arguement I have heard in Biblical debates. Pauls role is very clear in scripture. BTW, He’s still killing Christians while Peters converting 1000’s at Pentecost. The FIRST day of the Catholic Church. Is that even acknowledged in the EO? Or do we just breeze right past all “PETER” verse’s in the EO and just go with John and Paul?

Oh my! I hope I am reading this incorrectly. Did you just denigrate the holy Apostles Paul and John?

The cherry picking of Infallible encyclicals and all else becomes a futile waste of time

No it is not. No one has been able to answer Anna’s questions yet.

You know what I would actually understand if we were having this conversation in 1500. They were out of there minds then.

The protestants were a result of Roman Catholic abuses (and they were not out of their minds). The Orthodox did not have a horse in that race.

But Benedict? What is there to fear? You think he’ll send an army to Constantinople?

Settle down Gary. You are getting all worked up and beginning to talk nonsense.

 

[rinnie]

I posted a couple of Church Fathers who explained it for me, Gary.

Eph 2:19-20
Now therefore you are no more strangers and foreigners; but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and the domestics of God, Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone:
The Apostles.
The last I heard, The Roman Catholics believe that the Church Fathers (part of Holy Tradition) help us to interpret Sacred Scripture.

Are you a sola Scriptura Roman Catholic?
Oh my! I hope I am reading this incorrectly. Did you just denigrate the holy Apostles Paul and John?
No it is not. No one has been able to answer Anna’s questions yet.
The protestants were a result of Roman Catholic abuses (and they were not out of their minds). The Orthodox did not have a horse in that race.
Settle down Gary. You are getting all worked up and beginning to talk nonsense.

Did you see what you wrote Mickey CHIEF cornerstone. Christ is the CHIEF cornerstone. Peter is the ROCK not the CORNERSTONE.

 

[rinnie]

Mickey what do the abuses in the Catholic Church have to do with the Holy Spirit leading the RCC.

Are you saying the Protestants think that the POPE and the Bishops were the leadiers of the Church?

They left Christ in the RCC not the Pope. He was not the leader. CHrist did nothing wrong.

What I am saying what does the sins of the Human leaders have to do with Christ leading us in the RCC?

So then because Judas sinned that changed the teaching of Christ. Because that is what you are really saying then.

 

[Mickey]

Did you see what you wrote Mickey CHIEF cornerstone. Christ is the CHIEF cornerstone. Peter is the ROCK not the CORNERSTONE.

Did you see what I posted rinnie. Christ is the chief Cornerstone built upon the foundation of the glorious apostles and prophets.

 

[Mickey]

Mickey what do the abuses in the Catholic Church have to do with the Holy Spirit leading the RCC.

I don’t know.

Are you saying the Protestants think that the POPE and the Bishops were the leadiers of the Church?

I was not there to ask them.

They left Christ in the RCC not the Pope. He was not the leader. CHrist did nothing wrong.

I do not think that the protestants left Christ.

What I am saying what does the sins of the Human leaders have to do with Christ leading us in the RCC?

I have no idea what you are talking about. Christ is present where two or more are gathered together in His name.

So then because Judas sinned that changed the teaching of Christ. Because that is what you are really saying then.

Huh? You are making no sense. Please answer Anna’s questions.

 

[KathleenGee]

There is a total denial of the fact in regards to Christ singling out Peter among the rest of the apostles.

 

[KathleenGee]

The seat of Peter is not the seat of the perfection of Peter either.

Peter had this dream of the many animals…that we were now free to eat.

Peter was primarily working with the Jewish Nazarenes who believed in Christ. Later, with the practices of the Jews such as circumcision and dietary laws, Peter began to waffle. St. Paul, who was never among the disciples with Christ, was the only one outside of them who spoke with authority in Christ. He pretty much confronted Peter on backing off from the new liberal of eating foods.

The seat of Peter does not mean perfect authority. We have ministers made of clay. They can be corrected, they can err. I believe it was Pope Paul VI who wrote an encyclical that required all seminaries to teach only in Latin around the world. It was ignored.

As Gary Taylor quoted today…you don’t see Pope Benedict meddling into everybody’s diocese.

I think we are dealing with a certain perspective that is preventing non-Catholics in coming to grasp how we relate and understand papal infallibility. Some how the issue’s particularity is some how not being communicated in a way that we can answer satisfyingly.

The pope is not God. I will draw from ‘Threshold of Hope’ by John Paul II regarding the role of Vicar of Christ.

 

[rinnie]

I don’t know.
I was not there to ask them.
I do not think that the protestants left Christ.
I have no idea what you are talking about. Christ is present where two or more are gathered together in His name.
Huh? You are making no sense. Please answer Anna’s questions.

I did address Anna’s answers.

I am making sense think about what I just said to you. Was Peter Perfect? Did Peter sin? Did Peter make mistakes.

What about Judas, he was picked by Christ and betrayed Christ and gave into the devil. What does the failure of Judas have to do with the teaching’s of Christ. Do you see my point now.

Christ promised us the ADVOCATE the HOLY SPIRIT to lead the Church into all truth. Did Peter belong to the Church in Rome which is referred to the RCC? If you say Yes, then I agree with you.

He is still buried under that Church actually.

Now back to my point, Who has the PERFECT human leaders? Where did Christ say the Human leaders would be w/o sin? Because if he did I sure missed it.

I never said that Christ was not present where 2 or more prayed. I said Christ said there is only ONE HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH.

The RCC is one of them. Why do you blame the OHCC for the sins of Man. Christ PROMSIED us that the true Church would be led by the HS and would never be led away from the true word of God.

The Pope no matter what sin he has ever had overpowered God and taught us a lie. God promised us that when they spoke it was with HIS voice.

Now you must show me where the RCC cannot be traced to Peter.

 

[Mickey]

Did Peter belong to the Church in Rome which is referred to the RCC?

There was no such thing as the RCC at that time…and St Peter was in Antioch first.

Now back to my point, Who has the PERFECT human leaders? Where did Christ say the Human leaders would be w/o sin? Because if he did I sure missed it.

I am sorry…but what is your point?

I never said that Christ was not present where 2 or more prayed. I said Christ said there is only ONE HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH.

And of course I believe that is the Holy Orthodox Church.

Why do you blame the OHCC for the sins of Man.

Huh? What is the OHCC?

The Pope no matter what sin he has ever had overpowered God and taught us a lie.

Did you just say that the pope overpowered God and taught us a lie?

My dearest rinnie,

I am not going down this road with you again. I am having difficulty understanding your posts. You know where I stand. And you also know that I consider you my sister in Christ. I am taking another break from this forum because the Apostles Fast is beginning soon–culminating with the Great Feast of the Holy and Glorious Apostles SS Peter and Paul.

Peace and prayers to you and your family,
Mickey

 

[rinnie]

Acts 15:7 After much debate had taken place PETER GOT UP and said to them. My brothers you are WELL AWARE from EARLY DAYS GOD MADE HIS CHOICE among YOU that through MY MOUTH the gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe.

Now what kind of Choice Mickey? Why did he CHOOSE St Peter over the others. St Peter said in black and white GOD made his choice among YOU that is was to be through HIS mouth. How can you deny that scripture. How can you say God did not choose among them when it is stated?

 

[rinnie]

There was no such thing as the RCC at that time…and St Peter was in Antioch first.
I am sorry…but what is your point?
And of course I believe that is the Holy Orthodox Church.
Huh? What is the OHCC?
Did you just say that the pope overpowered God and taught us a lie?

My dearest rinnie,

I am not going down this road with you again. I am having difficulty understanding your posts. You know where I stand. And you also know that I consider you my sister in Christ. I am taking another break from this forum because the Apostles Fast is beginning soon–culminating with the Great Feast of the Holy and Glorious Apostles SS Peter and Paul.

Peace and prayers to you and your family,
Mickey

No Mickey that is what I am saying is IMPOSSIBLE for the POPE to do. TO lead us astray. He can’t. He promised us that when the Pope speaks in his name it is his truth that comes out.

The Pope CANNOT overpower God. That was my point!

 

[Mickey]

Acts 15:7 After much debate had taken place PETER GOT UP and said to them. My brothers you are WELL AWARE from EARLY DAYS GOD MADE HIS CHOICE among YOU that through MY MOUTH the gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe.

You should have kept going rinnie. St James was the leader of the Council of Jerusalem.

Holy Acts of the Apostles 15:6-20
And the apostles and ancients assembled to consider of this matter. And when there had been much disputing, Peter, rising up, said to them: Men, brethren, you know, that in former days God made choice among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And God, who knoweth the hearts, gave testimony, giving unto them the Holy Ghost, as well as to us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. Now therefore, why tempt you God to put a yoke upon the necks of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?

But by the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, we believe to be saved, in like manner as they also. And all the multitude held their peace; and they heard Barnabas and Paul telling what great signs and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them. And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying: Men, brethren, hear me. Simon hath related how God first visited to take of the Gentiles a people to his name. And to this agree the words of the prophets, as it is written: After these things I will return, and will rebuild the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and the ruins thereof I will rebuild, and I will set it up: That the residue of men may seek after the Lord, and all nations upon whom my name is invoked, saith the Lord, who doth these things. To the Lord was his own work known from the beginning of the world. For which cause I judge that they, who from among the Gentiles are converted to God, are not to be disquieted. But that we write unto them, that they refrain themselves from the pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

 

[Izdaari]

I’d imagine the teachings on re-marriage and contraception (and possibly masturbation) might be objected to by some Protestants, even some who are on the same page with other moral teachings.

Right. I would say not only some, but most Protestants, even the conservative ones, have an issue with those. Certainly I do. “Have an issue with” is much milder than I would put it really, just trying to be courteous to my Catholic brethren. But I don’t know that the pope has made an infallible declaration on those topics. Of course, Protestants have an issue with the doctrine of papal infallibility too; if they believed that, they’d be Catholic.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Lets go back now Anna to what you said, Then you are saying that there is Salvation outside of the CC then?

No. I quoted Popes who said that (see post 139).

All that, every single quote that you posted said there is no salvation outside of the CC.

Popes quoted in post 139 said that; but the CCC gives exceptions, such as:

818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272

All that is said, in order to have salvation they must be subjected to the RC or Roman Pontiff No Exceptions, Now what part of that do you disagree with.

I disagree that, without exception, there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church.

Please show me any Catholic Church that can possibly have a Valid Holy Orders without being connected to the RCC.

The issue isn’t valid orders. It is salvation and whether “it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff,” as declared, proclaimed, and defined by Unam Sanctam—which, in post 175, you said is an infallible teaching.

Pope John Paull II said any Church who has valid Holy Orders is united to the RCC by the bond which is the Apostolic Succession and a valid Eucharist. . The Pope said we are still in communion with eachother although it is not a perfect Communion.

Now once again prove the Pope wrong. Please show me how any Church can be the True Catholic Church that is not connected to the Apostles sent by Christ. How can we be saved if we do not have the Valid Sacraments that is needed for our Salvation Anna.

The issue is not how any “Church can be the True Catholic Church that is not connected to the Apostles sent by Christ,” or “How can we be saved if we do not have the Valid Sacraments.”

The issue is salvation outside the CC.

I told you the only exveption is if someone does not know of the teachings of Christ. St Pau II l said that God will not hold us bound to something we do not know. That is why Salvation if for everyone and the Apostles were sent to spread the good news all over the world.

The CCC gives more than one exception.

Now please show me where the Pope is wrong is saying that in order to have a valid Holy Orders they must be united by Apostolic Succession and that means they have to be united to the RCC.

Once again, the issue is not “in order to have a valid Holy Orders they must be united by Apostolic Succession and that means they have to be united to the RCC.”

The issue is salvation and whether “it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff,” as declared, proclaimed, and defined by Unam Sanctam—which, in post 175, you said is an infallible teaching.

And as far as what Pope Pius XI said is you have to recognize the primacy of St. Peter.

Not just “recognize,” but also “obey.”

Pope Pius XI:
“Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors.” (Pope Pius XI, Encyclical, Mortalium animos, January 6, 1928, The Papal Encyclicals, Claudia Carlen, I.H.M., McGrath Publishing Co., 1981, pp. 317, 318).

Anna it is clear to me. I am Roman Catholic. I submit to the teachings of the Pope. ALL OF THEM. It does not matter to me what they are. IF the Popes says it is what I am to do. I obey.

I’m not trying to prove Pope John Paul II wrong. I’m trying to understand which Popes spoke infallibly about salvation, and how you can agree with what every Pope said, when they don’t seem to be saying the same thing as the CCC.

So, I asked you some very specific questions, which you refuse to answer.

Thank you for answering my question. You agree the statement in Unam Sanctam: “We declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff,” is an infallible teaching,

-----but even though this infallible teaching says, "it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff," some human creatures, not subject to the Roman Pontiff, will be saved? Doesn’t that contract the infallible teaching?

-----Did Unam Sanctam, which you say is an infallible teaching, define the exceptions of which you speak–to clear up this apparent contradiction?

Gary quoted Unam Sanctam in Post #123:

-----If Unam Sanctam didn’t define exceptions; at what point in history were these “exceptions” defined? Please provide sources.

I’m trying to understand the infallible teachings of the Catholic Church regarding salvation, so I can answer the OP’s question about whether or not I object. I’m also trying to understand how the issue of infallibility works in the Catholic Church.

I’m asking for direct answers to direct questions. Is there any chance you will answer these?

Peace,
Anna

 

[rinnie]

But see Anna that is my point, I do NOT see where they are not saying the SAME THING. Maybe in a different way.

But what I am asking where do you seem them contradicting oneanother I don’t see it Anna.