Where can Non-Catholics go to find an official document listing all Infallible excathedra states made by various Popes?

[LionHeart777]

Also 1Tim215Mommy,

This archived article by Jimmy Akin would be a good primer for you:

“Identifying Infallible Statements”

By Jimmy Akin

 

[GaryTaylor]

St. Siricius wrote to Himerius in 385: “To your inquiry we do not deny a legal reply, because we, upon whom greater zeal for the Christian religion is incumbent than upon the whole body, out of consideration for our office do not have the liberty to dissimulate, nor to remain silent. We carry the weight of all who are burdened; nay rather the blessed apostle PETER bears these in us, who, as we trust, protects us in all matters of his administration, and guards his heirs” (Denziger §87, emphasis in original).

It was probably one of those matters you guys didn’t feel was important back in the day. Like the Council of Orange II. As you guys said, probably one of those things you didn’t realize you agree’d with when it occurred…like II Orange.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Quite simply, we don’t have an official list because it doesn’t matter where something comes from. As Catholics, we are to hold fast to everything the Church teaches. We don’t place any greater weight to a teaching whether is has come to us by way of a Papal Ex Cathedra proclamation or some other vehicle. For example, the teaching of the Immaculate Conception has the exact same weight as the teaching of Jesus’ Resurrection.

It should also be noted that Papal Infallibility is an extraordinary use of the Magisterium. That means that it is not the normal, everyday, ordinary way that we come to understand the revelation of faith once delivered to the Apostles.

Now, if we turned the question around - where can I find the Orthodox official list of teachings that have come to us through the Ecumenical Councils? Or where can I find the official list of what teachings must be believed as opposed to, say, theologumen?

 

[GaryTaylor]

I’m struggling to understand the significance of the Nicene Creed in the EO. All the hype about the filioque, I find it contrary to this statement…

“these Christians who cannot point their fingers at this enemy of mankind are the same people who illogically claim that in Christ there is remission of this unknown original sin.”
[Fr. Romanides]

So the Creed is take it of leave it…“fallible”.

I thought you guys were preserving the tradition, whats that called above???

You guys remember the history of Baptism or was that another, you agreed but didn’t know what you agreed to?

You guys are confusing. You say one thing one day and another the next. Where do you get this stuff from anti-Catholic protestant sights? You read it on the internet so it must be true?

 

[adf417]

Reading this thread reminds me of the years of difficulty my wife and I have had with our rebellious child. We have been in therapy (among other things) for many years and each different therapist would insist we must give her definitive guide lines (in list form) of our expectations and her responsibilities. After 3 months of implementation, the therapist would invariably scratch their head in amazement saying “I don’t understand why she is not responding to this treatment”.

Most parents have all dealt with this to some degree,

Parent list:

1. 
   *]Clean room
   *]Take out trash
   *]Do home work
   
   Parent comes home from work and ask why did you not finish your room? Child - “I did”. Parent- “No you didn’t. there is still stuff under your bed”, Child – “Cleaning under my bed is not on the list”.
   
   And the examples are endless…
   
   Thank God we do not have these lists in the Catholic Church as requested by the OP. Its already too easy to get around the orthodoxy of truth as it is.
   
   Peace!!!

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I remind you again that your posts are completely off topic. I thank you in advance to please choose to post in another non-Catholic thread or get on-topic in this one.

Another false accusation.

How are these off topic?

Isaiah45_9:

There is no such document. That I am aware of.

Isaiah45_9:

Catholics are bound to believe what has been authoritatively taught by the Catholic Church, even if it’s not declared to be infallible (The Catechism of the Catholic Church is an example of authoritative teachings).

Catholics are not bound to believe single theological opinions offered by individual members of the Magisterium (That includes the Pope). (Private Revelation declarations are an example of this, and so are the theological books by Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI).

As for the media. I personally don’t believe anything that is said on the media “prima facie”. Regardless of the source. But that is me. I like to test and verify before making a formal opinion or adjudicate a comment to anything.

1 Thessalonians 5:21 but test everything; hold fast what is good,

Here is a thread here on CAF about this subject:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=458304

In the other posts, I responded to your allegations. How is that off topic?

 

[LionHeart777]

There is no list (at least that I’m aware of), but you can get a good idea as a lay person what is and what isn’t using the criteria laid out in “Pastor Aeternus”. What is more, the Catholic Church recognizes three organs on infallibility:

"-the bishops dispersed throughout the world in union with the Holy See;

-ecumenical councils under the headship of the pope; and

-the pope himself separately. [when speaking ex cathedra]"

Source: Toner, Patrick. “Infallibility.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 7. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1910. 15 Jul. 2013 http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm.

As I said, one can get a good idea by the criteria laid out by the Ecumenical Council of Vatican I, or if you want to dive in deeper one could consult, Theology manuals, Theologians, etc.

This is not the case, many (if not most) are commonly known (or should be by applying the criteria.) If some Theologians disagree on this or that, so be it. This does not mean that it is of no use (Heaven forbid!) **Would you rather have a St. Peter in the Apostolic band whose faith could fail, one one who’s faith could not (St. Luke 22:32) ?
**

I believe that is because you have drawn the wrong conclusions based on not all of the facts. If you really want to know more, dive into some good Catholic sources (you could start with the article I cited above. Also, you could read the Vatican I document that defined it, “Pastor Aeternus”, to see the usefulness of Papal Infallibility.)

" Would you rather have a St. Peter in the Apostolic band whose faith could fail, or one who’s faith could not (St. Luke 22:32) ?
"

I felt the need to fix my typo

 

[Rolltide]

Here’s a list that’s been around for a while that was compiled by Dr. Ludwig Ott of all the dogmas (infallible statements) of the Catholic Church. It’s from his book “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma”. It is not definitive or official, but I think it’s been held to be pretty accurate:

jloughnan.tripod.com/dogma.htm

And here is an article from EWTN that discusses the classifications of these infallible statements. The classifications are used in the list above.

ewtn.com/library/doctrine/TRIGINFL.HTM

 

[GaryTaylor]

The Bishop of Rome has never had the opportunity to remain silent. That’s not a historic fact.

St. Siricius 385: “we do not have the liberty to remain silent.”

Nor can an umpire in a baseball game.

 

[pablope]

Quote:
Who said there are no records? What you asked for is a list. There are records…just that there is not list.

whoa, a new language needs to be learned to ask a question! Frustrating, but I’ll play along as I would like an answer.

You have been given the answer…so I do not know what the confusion is…

There is no list because nobody has bothered to get a construct a list…because of 2000 yrs of records and history.

Would you like to start scouring the Vatican records and start the task?

Here we go, rephrasing my question yet again in hopes of receiving a straight answer: where does a non-Catholic find a “record” of all the official recognized Infallible Statements made by Popes?

Again…for the nth time…you can get a sense of these in the way the Church has always taught, worshipped, lived its teachings.

*You too have a Magisterium…the head of your magisterium is just called a different name…he is called a Patriarch. *

No, in the Orthodox Church all Bishops are Equal, whether they be Metropolitans, Archbishops or Patriarch they are all Equal. The only Head of our Orthodox Church is Jesus Christ.

Do you know what a magisterium is? A magisterium means teaching authority. ewtn.com/faith/teachings/chura4.htm

By the Magisterium we mean the teaching office of the Church. It consists of the Pope and Bishops. Christ promised to protect the teaching of the Church : “He who hears you, hears me; he who rejects your rejects me, he who rejects me, rejects Him who sent me” (Luke 10. 16).

So when a Patriarch sits in council with other bishops…is the Patriach given deference? Is he given honor? So they are not all equals in the sense that someone always will project authority.

And yes…your bishops are your magisterium…headed by your Patriarch here on earth.

You just do not call them a Magisterium.

If it was up to each individual to determine truth…there would be mass confusion. There is no such mass confusion in the Catholic Church.

That’s an interesting choice of words, in a Catholic bookstore I picked up a book to look at it briefly, but didn’t buy it, titled Mass Confusion. Apparently there is so much “confusion” among Catholics the confusion has even crossed into their Divine Liturgy aka the Catholic Mass.

So you saw a book titled “Mass Confusion” and you did not bother to read the book…

So by looking at one book title…you conclude there is widespead confusion in the CC?

If I saw a similar titled book in an Orthodox bookshop…would I be so far off my senses if I concluded there is also mass confusion in the Orthodox church?

I had been told that having an Infallible Pope gave the Catholic Church more authority, yet there is chaos in the Mass itself per “Mass Confusion”. This leaves me perplexed, but this is getting off-topic.

You have been told wrong. Can you cite the document or whatever statement from the CC that having an infallible pope gave the CC more authority?

You seem to be ignoring the responses that said…there is such confusion…any such confusion is cleared by the Magisterium. Only those remaining to be confused remaine to be confused.

Please, please clear up all the confusion on this topic by directing me to the “records” of what the Magisterium confirms are the infallible statements of the Popes.

If you want to see the records…all you have to do is go to the Vatican Library…there you will find volumes of records…and you can spend a lifetime there searching.

Are you the authority to make such a conclusion?

The Orthodox Church has never believed or accepted the 19th Century Catholic Dogma of Papal Infallibility. The fact that there is no list, document or record of all Infallible Papal Statements and therefore no way to for anyone to know what is considered infallible papal statements, it’s the only conclusion that I can reasonably come to…to agree with what the Orthodox Church has taught for nearly 2,000 yrs.

Has the Orthodox taught error for 2000 yrs? Yes or no? And what is the reason for that?

When an Orthodox Patriarch or bishop for that matter makes a pronouncement for the Orthodox Church…is he protected from error on faith and morals? Yes or no?

At least I looked into the possibility that the Pope may have been Infallible.

I do not know what sources you looked at…but your questions indicate you have been imbued with “mass confusion”…:shrug:

 

[Isaiah45_9]

That’s an interesting choice of words, in a Catholic bookstore I picked up a book to look at it briefly, but didn’t buy it, titled Mass Confusion. **Apparently **there is so much “confusion” among Catholics the confusion has even crossed into their Divine Liturgy aka the Catholic Mass.

I had been told that having an Infallible Pope gave the Catholic Church more authority, yet there is chaos in the Mass itself per “Mass Confusion”. This leaves me perplexed, but this is getting off-topic.

Here we go again. You saw a book, looked at it but did not read it completely and then reached a conclusion without comparing it or verifying its sources and claims…

Further, you say that there is “chaos” in the Mass - based on this unread book.

Please Lord give me patience…

And yes, this is off-topic.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I do not know what sources you looked at…but your questions indicate you have been imbued with “mass confusion”…:shrug:

In this same logic:

I once saw a book that had the title of “What is Orthodoxy”. Therefore, I determined that Orthodox don’t know who they are.

Disclaimer: This is not an actual opinion or event. It was posted to contrast against what others use as logical thinking.

 

[1Tim215Mommy]

Here’s a list that’s been around for a while that was compiled by Dr. Ludwig Ott of all the dogmas (infallible statements) of the Catholic Church. It’s from his book “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma”. It is not definitive or official, but I think it’s been held to be pretty accurate:

jloughnan.tripod.com/dogma.htm

And here is an article from EWTN that discusses the classifications of these infallible statements. The classifications are used in the list above.

ewtn.com/library/doctrine/TRIGINFL.HTM

Rolltide, I really appreciate that you’ve provided a straight answer and not a run-around! Thank you!!

I did review the link is this a list of Papal excathedra Infallible Statements? Which Popes made those Statements and when?

 

[1Tim215Mommy]

1. Has the Orthodox taught error for 2000 yrs? Yes or no? And what is the reason for that?
2. When an Orthodox Patriarch or bishop for that matter makes a pronouncement for the Orthodox Church…is he protected from error on faith and morals? Yes or no?

1. No, because the Orthodox Church has as head Jesus Christ and is guided in all Truth by the Holy Spirit.
2. No, no single person or office within Orthodox Christianity is protected from error on faith and morals. The promise that the gates of hell would not prevail was given to the whole Church, not anyone individual or office. The promise has been kept in Conciliar decrees accepted by the whole Orthodox Church, ref. Acts 15.

**Clarification Request **based on your most recent post suggesting that I would have to read through 2,000 years worth of documents kept at the Vatican to find the Papal excathedra Infallible Statements added to History which reveals that Papal Infallibility didn’t become Catholic dogma until 1870, just 143 years ago or approximately 7% of 2,000 years. With the basis of my clarification request being made, the question is: Do you think the Pope was Infallible on moral and faith Before Papal Infallibility became Catholic dogma?

 

[Della]

**Clarification Request **based on your most recent post suggesting that I would have to read through 2,000 years worth of documents kept at the Vatican to find the Papal excathedra Infallible Statements added to History which reveals that Papal Infallibility didn’t become Catholic dogma until 1870, just 143 years ago or approximately 7% of 2,000 years. With the basis of my clarification request being made, the question is: Do you think the Pope was Infallible on moral and faith Before Papal Infallibility became Catholic dogma?

Dogmas are doctrines definitively defined. The Church has always held that what the pope formally states as Catholic teaching is infallible. This teaching was declared dogma, but it was already believed and taught. Every dogma is a doctrine definitively defined.

 

[jmcrae]

1. No, because the Orthodox Church has as head Jesus Christ and is guided in all Truth by the Holy Spirit.
2. No, no single person or office within Orthodox Christianity is protected from error on faith and morals. The promise that the gates of hell would not prevail was given to the whole Church, not anyone individual or office. The promise has been kept in Conciliar decrees accepted by the whole Orthodox Church, ref. Acts 15.

**Clarification Request **based on your most recent post suggesting that I would have to read through 2,000 years worth of documents kept at the Vatican to find the Papal excathedra Infallible Statements added to History which reveals that Papal Infallibility didn’t become Catholic dogma until 1870, just 143 years ago or approximately 7% of 2,000 years. With the basis of my clarification request being made, the question is: Do you think the Pope was Infallible on moral and faith Before Papal Infallibility became Catholic dogma?

Absolutely yes, otherwise we would have no New Testament. The canon of the Bible was infallibly declared by Pope Innocent I in 405 AD.

 

[jmcrae]

1. No, because the Orthodox Church has as head Jesus Christ and is guided in all Truth by the Holy Spirit.

Anyone can make this claim. What is the guarantor that the spirit is, in fact, the Holy Spirit?

1. No, no single person or office within Orthodox Christianity is protected from error on faith and morals. The promise that the gates of hell would not prevail was given to the whole Church, not anyone individual or office.

Read it again; it was given to Peter. Matthew 16:18-19. Notice the “thou,” signifying one individual.

 

[pablope]

1. No, because the Orthodox Church has as head Jesus Christ and is guided in all Truth by the Holy Spirit.

Good…would you agree that the HS also extends this protection to the Catholic Church?

1. No, no single person or office within Orthodox Christianity is protected from error on faith and morals. The promise that the gates of hell would not prevail was given to the whole Church, not anyone individual or office. The promise has been kept in Conciliar decrees accepted by the whole Orthodox Church, ref. Acts 15.

 

[1Tim215Mommy]

1. Anyone can make this claim.
2. What is the guarantor that the spirit is, in fact, the Holy Spirit?
3. Read it again; it was given to Peter. Matthew 16:18-19. Notice the “thou,” signifying one individual.

1. Yes, anyone can say anything.
2. Yes, the Spirit that guided the Orthodox Church Councils, from Acts 15 to Constantinople I, etc., is the Holy Spirit we know that because the Holy Spirit was given to the Orthodox Church through Jesus breathing on the group of His Apostles and all Orthodox Bishops each can trace their ordinations back to one of His Apostles.
3. The Church Fathers, like St. John Chrysostom, wrote about how they understood Jesus to be speaking to all of the Apostles in that passage. I have read about it in other threads on this forum which you can research or you may begin a new thread specifically on this topic.

 

[jmcrae]

1. Yes, anyone can say anything.
2. Yes, the Spirit that guided the Orthodox Church Councils, from Acts 15 to Constantinople I, etc., is the Holy Spirit we know that because the Holy Spirit was given to the Orthodox Church through Jesus breathing on the group of His Apostles and all Orthodox Bishops each can trace their ordinations back to one of His Apostles.
3. The Church Fathers, like St. John Chrysostom, wrote about how they understood Jesus to be speaking to all of the Apostles in that passage. I have read about it in other threads on this forum which you can research or you may begin a new thread specifically on this topic.

Have you read St. John Chrysostom’s Homily for Pentecost (Sermons of the Early Fathers, vol. 4) In that work, he specifically points out that the “you” in that passage is singular, and signifies Peter and his office.