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

[1Tim215Mommy]

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

 

[tdgesq]

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?

This is really the correct answer. All teachings of the extraordinary Magisterium (and infallible teachings of the ordinary Magisterium, for that matter), including the decrees of Ecumenical Councils, must be fully assented to by Catholics. Having an official list of all teachings of the extraordinary Magisterium, whether from the Pope or from Ecumenical Councils, makes no more sense to Catholics than it would make sense to Orthodox that there must be some definitive list of dogmatic decrees from the first seven Ecumenical Councils.

More to the point, sacred Orthodox Traditions that may or may not be contained in the texts of a council are still part of the deposit of Orthodox faith. If I were to demand an “official list” from the Orthodox of those, I would expect the reply to be “why would I need that? I know what the Traditions of my Church are as handed down by my bishops and taught to me by my Church.” Even so, Catholics do know of ex cathedra decrees from Popes without the need of an official list.

No one seriously contests that Ineffabilis Deus and Munificentissimus Deus don’t contain dogmatic utterances from a Pope. Orthodox (and even some Catholics) might claim that the Pope doesn’t have the power to do that, but there’s no doubt that he did declare that those are universal truths that must be believed by all the Catholic faithful. The notion that without a list Catholics just can’t know whether declarations made by Popes are infallible obviously isn’t accurate.

 

[pablope]

But what do you believe? Do you believe the CC has also apostolic lineage via Peter?

1. Acts 15:
   vs. 13 **"After they had fallen silent **

(after listening to Paul & Barnabas in vs. 12) James responded, My brothers, listen to me "(James not Peter).

Fast forward to vs. 19 "It is my (James not Peter)** judgement, therefore, that we ought to stop troubling the Gentiles who turn to God."**

Fast forward to vs. 22** “Then the apostles** (not just one person/office, not just James and not just Peter) and the presyters, in agreement with the whole church,…”

Hmm…looks like you ignored the prior verses. Here is doctrinal statement:

(Peter begins his speech with this reminder

7 After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “My brothers,** you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that I should be the one through whom the Gentiles would hear the message of the good news and become believers.
8 And God, who knows the human heart, testified to them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as he did to us; 9 and in cleansing their hearts by faith he has made no distinction between them and us. 10 Now therefore why are you putting God to the test by placing on the neck of the disciples a yoke that neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear? 11 On the contrary, we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.”

James response was a response to placate the Judaizers.

Now back to verse 7…And prior to acts 15…the revelation. Notice to whom it was revealed:

Acts 10:
9 About noon the next day, as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray…12 In it were all kinds of four-footed creatures and reptiles and birds of the air. 13 Then he heard a voice saying, “Get up, Peter; kill and eat.” 14 But Peter said, “By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is profane or unclean.” 15 The voice said to him again, a second time, “What God has made clean, you must not call profane.” 16 This happened three times, and the thing was suddenly taken up to heaven…17 Now while Peter was greatly puzzled about what to make of the vision that he had seen, suddenly the men sent by Cornelius appeared. They were asking for Simon’s house and were standing by the gate…Then Peter said, 47 “Can anyone withhold the water for baptizing these people who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” 48 So he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they invited him to stay for several days.

From Acts 11:

2 So when Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcised believers** criticized him, 3 saying, “Why did you go to uncircumcised men and eat with them?” 4 Then Peter began to explain it to them, step by step, saying,…17 If then God gave them the same gift that he gave us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could hinder God?” 18 When they heard this, they were silenced. And they praised God, saying, “Then God has given even to the Gentiles the repentance that leads to life.”

The revelation was to Peter, not James or John or any other apostle.

After reading Acts 15, the answer to your question is the doctrinal decisions made in the Council recorded in Act 15 were made by the Council with the agreement of the whole Church, not one person.

---

Verse 7 and following does not support what you are saying. The council debated and debated…only after Peter spoke did the debate stopped. The doctrinal decision was accepted by the whole church.

Also, you not one person made the decision…but in your own post…you refute your own statement…and you cite James as making the decision. So either way…whether you believe it to be James…the fact is one person made the decision. The council debated…but a doctrinal position was voiced by one person.

 

[pablope]

ou accept as Infallible all Papal statements made excathedra on morals and faith throughout the Catholic Church’s History?

1. You accept as Infallible all Papal statements made excathedra on morals and faith throughout the Catholic Church’s History?

You’re welcome to read the rest of Session 13 and all the Sessions of that pre-Schism Ecumenical Council. Just one more quote, this one from Session 16 “To Honorius, the heretic, anathema!”…"To all heretics, anathema! To all who side with heretics, anathema!"

In the above, you notice that an Orthodox Patriarch was also condemned as a Heretic and Anathematized as well, yet that’s not a problem for Orthodox Christians because we have never believed or taught that any one person or office is Infallible. I imagine that having a Pope condemned by Ecumenical Council as a Heretic for Teaching in writing Heresy in a matter of Faith (specifically he wrote that Jesus has one Will, not two) excathedra in his role as Pope to fellow Patriarch may pose a difficulty with the doctrine/dogma of Papal Infallibility. For me as a non-Catholic, this historical fact confirms for me that Papal Infallibility can’t be Truth. For Catholics, how is this historical fact reconciled with Papal Infallibility as declared in 1870?

Are you citing the case of Pope Honorius? Perhaps you should research more. Pope Honorius was condemned for what he failed to do, for his failure to act, not for what he taught.

well…it looks like you read selectively. Have you read the rest of the story?

Are you aware that an ecumenical council’s decision need papal approval/confimation? So which pope agreed with the finding you cited?

Actually…you can see infallibility in action by the actions of Pope John IV and Pope Leo II:

archive.catholic.com/thisrock/1994/9409fea2.asp

Monothelites, as they grew in numbers and influence over the ensuing years, seized upon Honorius’ confession of “one will of our Lord Jesus Christ” as confirmation that the Pope believed with them that Christ had no human will. Newman and other commentators have noted that Honorius’ letters to Sergius are not doctrinal definitions ex cathedra; thus they are outside the scope of infallibility defined by the First Vatican Council.

That is true, but, even more to the point, a look at Honorius’ exact words shows that while he did use a formula–“one will”–that was later declared heretical, he used it in a sense that implied the orthodox belief.

This was picked up as early as 640 by Pope John IV, Honorius’ successor, who pointed out that Sergius had asked only about the presence of two opposing wills. Honorius had answered accordingly, speaking, says Pope John, “only of the human and not also of the divine nature.” Pope John was right. Honorius assumed the existence of a human will in Christ by saying that his nature is like humanity’s before the Fall. No one would claim that before the Fall Adam had no will. Thus Honorius’s speaking of Christ’s assumption of a “faultless” human nature shows that he really did believe in the orthodox formula of two wills in Christ: one divine, one human, in perfect agreement.

The Third Council of Constantinople was thus in error when it condemned Honorius for heresy. But a Council, of course, has no authority except insofar as its decrees are confirmed by the pope. The reigning Pontiff, Leo II, did not agree to the condemnation of his predecessor for heresy; he said Honorius should be condemned because “he permitted the immaculate faith to be subverted.” [Carroll, 254]

1. The Bishops of the Councils submit to the whole Church for agreement, just as recorded in Acts 15:22 quoted above in my response to #2

Who acts for the Church? Who indicates this acceptance of what a council has decided?

 

[1Tim215Mommy]

1. Hmm…looks like you ignored the prior verses.
2. The revelation was to Peter, not James or John or any other apostle.
3. Also, you not one person made the decision…but in your own post…you refute your own statement…and you cite James as making the decision. So either way…whether you believe it to be James…the fact is one person made the decision.

1. No, I didn’t. I answered your question by quoting the points of the Council you asked about - the decision of the Council: Acts 15: 12, 19 & 22. Yes, Peter was one of many who spoke at the Council, he wasn’t the first speaker and he wasn’t the last. I choose not to read into Sacred Scripture what isn’t there. It’s clear to see that you’re reading into it what the Catholic now teaches about the Pope - good Catholic!
2. Sure the revelation you’re speaking of was given to Peter and a different revelation was given only to Paul and another given only to John, and?
3. James is known for being the first Bishop of Jerusalem, of course as the leader of that Church he was the one to give the Councils’ judgement as recorded clearly in Acts 15:19; however, that doesn’t make him infallible. Continue reading Acts 15:22, the apostles, the priests and the entire Church agreed, so No it’s not one man, never has been.

 

[1Tim215Mommy]

1. Are you citing the case of Pope Honorius? Perhaps you should research more. Pope Honorius was condemned for what he failed to do, for his failure to act, not for what he taught.
2. Are you aware that an ecumenical council’s decision need papal approval/confimation? So which pope agreed with the finding you cited?
3. That is true, but, even more to the point, a look at Honorius’ exact words shows that while he did use a formula–“one will”–that was later declared heretical, he used it in a sense that implied the orthodox belief.
4. The Third Council of Constantinople was thus in error when it condemned Honorius for heresy.

1. I quoted to you directly from the Sessions of the Council itself. There is no where in any of the Sessions anything remotely close to your claim that Pope Honorius was condemned for “failure to act”. As anyone who actually reads the Sessions of the Council will see Pope Honorius was specifically condemned as a Heretic and Anathametized for what he Did, for what he Taught!
2. I am aware that Catholic think they depend on the acceptance of Rome alone, but as history shows and as shown in Acts 15:22, the Councils must be accepted by the WHOLE Church.
3. Oh, I see you think that what was once considered straight heresy can actual be used in a manner considered orthodox now? Ya, sure. What the heck!?!
4. This comment of your’s dropped my jaw! You seriously are claiming that an Ecumenical Council, which was accepted by the entire pre-schism Church (including Rome) was in ERROR!?! Now, you do realize this means that the Roman Church, who along with the rest of the pre-schism Church, accepted Error as Truth, right?

 

[eamonnroma]

The popes defined themselves infallible at the 1st Vatican Council. Up until that time infallibility had never been an issue. It was a response to the political situation at the time when Italy was uniting and freeing itself from the temporal power of the papacy. Some cardinals fled from the Council as they were being forced to vote for something they did not accept. That said, it does not mean that the definiton is not valid, it is valid as it was the will of the Church.

The Vatican Council taught that it is anathema not to accept the definition of infallibility. As Catholics we must accept it.

There has only been one ex-cathedra statement since the Council, and that was the definition of the dogma of the Assumption in 1950. Interesting to note that with the definition of the dogma of the Assumption, we accept that the dogma has always been so - not something invented in 1950. It always was always so, but not defined until that date. In theory until 1950 Catholics were free to doubt the dogma as it had not been defined.

What is certain is that the definition of Infabillity has caused many divisions in Christianity.

 

[LionHeart777]

1Tim215Mommy,

If a Council must be accepted by the whole Church in order to be deemed Ecumenical than, by this logic, the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon and those subsequent Councils that both Catholics and Eastern Orthodox agree upon are not Ecumenical since they are not accepted by the Oriental Orthodox, and thus, as you say “the whole Church”.

Anyway, here are the words of a Pre- (East-West) Schism Eastern Theologian which I believe reinforce the Catholic position, including the reading b y the Catholic(s) here that, ultimately it was St. Peter at the helm in the Jerusalem Council.

This is from Theodore Abu Qurrah, and James Likoudis introduces the passage:

In another tract “On the Death of Christ”, our Syrian theologian transmits the orthodox tradition concerning the relationship of the Popes’ Petrine Primacy to the first six Ecumenical Councils held in the First Millennium of the Church’s history:

‘As for us, through the grace of the Holy Spirit, our sole goal is to build ourselves on the foundation of St. Peter, he who directed the six holy councils. These councils were gathered by command of the Bishop of Rome, the city of the world. Whoever sits on that city’s throne is authorized by Christ to have compassion on the people of the church, by summoning the ecumenical council, and to strengthen them, even as we have demonstrated in other places. We ask Christ to confirm us in this forever, that we might inherit through it his kingdom, in that we have joined with it the doing of his commandments. To him be praise, along with the Father and the Holy Spirit, forever and forever.’ (p. 128)

(Source: credo.stormloader.com/Ecumenic/theodore.htm)

In order to see that this Pre-Scism Syrian Bishop teaches that this Primacy of St. Peter was by Divine right, I will quote the following:

'You should understand that the head of the Apostles was St. Peter, to whom Christ said, ‘You are the rock; and on this rock I shall build my church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it.’ After his resurrection, he also said to him three times, while on the shore of the sea of Tiberius, ‘Simon, do you love me? Feed my lambs, rams and ewes.’ In another passage, he said to him, ‘Simon, Satan will ask to sift you like wheat, and I prayed that you not lose your faith; but you, at that time, have compassion on your brethren and strengthen them.’ Do you not see that St. Peter is the foundation of the church, selected to shepherd it, that those who believe in his faith will never lose their faith, and that he was ordered to have compassion on his brethren and to strengthen them? As for Christ’s words, ‘I have prayed for you, that you not lose your faith; but you, have compassion on your brethren, at that time, and strengthen them’, we do not think that he meant St. Peter himself. Rather, he meant nothing more than the holders of the seat of St. Peter, that is, Rome. Just as when he said to the apostles, ‘I am with you always, until the end of the age’, he did not mean just the apostles themselves, but also those who would be in charge of their seats and their flocks; in the same way, when he spoke his last words to St. Peter, ‘Have compassion, at that time, and strengthen your brethren; and your faith will not be lost’, he meant by this nothing other than the holders of his seat.

Yet another indication of this is the fact that among the apostles it was St. Peter alone who lost his faith and denied Christ, which Christ may have allowed to happen to Peter so as to teach us that it was not Peter that he meant by these words. Moreover, we know of no apostle who fell and needed St. Peter to strengthen him. If someone says that Christ meant by these words only St. Peter himself, this person causes the church to lack someone to strengthen it after the death of St. Peter. How could this happen, especially when we see all the sifting of the church that came from Satan after the apostles’ death? All of this indicates that Christ did not mean them by these words. Indeed, everyone knows that the heretics attacked the church only after the death of the apostles – Paul of Samosata, Arius, Macedonius, Eunomius, Sabelllius, Apollinaris, Origen, and others. If he meant by these words in the gospel only St. Peter, the church would have been deprived of comfort and would have had no one to deliver her from those heretics, whose heresies are truly ‘the gates of hell’, which Christ said would not overcome the church. Accordingly, there is no doubt that he meant by these words nothing other than the holders of the seat of St. Peter, who have continually strengthened their brethren and will not cease to do so as long as this present age lasts.’ (pp. 68-69)

Ibid.

Notice reference to the classic Petrine texts, many if not all of which are cited in the Ecumenical Council of Vatican I’s document Pastor Aeternus which defines the Dogma of Papal Infallibility.

So I would ask, since Christ gave the mission to St. Peter to tend to His sheep (John 21:16, notice all of the sheep–but this does not negate that there are other Pastors who also tend to sheep…but not all), and to strengthen the brethren (Luke 22:32), doesn’t it make sense that He would pray for St. Peter’s faith (and his alone) that it would not fail (Luke 22:32)? And can’t you see that a faith that is not able to fail (unless of course you believe Jesus Christ’s prayer was not answered), implies infallibility?

We see in Scripture that St. Peter was given a specific office (that parallel to the Prime Minister in the Jewish Kingdom, cf. Mt. 16:18-19, Is. 22:22), and that he was equipped by Jesus to fulfill his role. And this role/office, established by Christ for the good of the Church, did not end with St. Peter.

 

[KathleenGee]

In spite of Pope Honorious faulty practices…and it is in the sphere of pastoral administration where goof ups occur, and likewise reveal God’s humanity He has called to serve His Church.

Who else does He have? Angels cannot run it and we cannot see them.

Pope Honorious correctly and infallibly taught in faith and morals – the parameters of papal infallibity, that Christ had not just one will but two. Christ has 2 wills, that of His humanity, and that of His Heavenly Father, and Christ chose to live only the will of the Father.

 

[josie_L]

1. I quoted to you directly from the Sessions of the Council itself. There is no where in any of the Sessions anything remotely close to your claim that Pope Honorius was condemned for “failure to act”. As anyone who actually reads the Sessions of the Council will see Pope Honorius was specifically condemned as a Heretic and Anathametized for what he Did, for what he Taught!
2. I am aware that Catholic think they depend on the acceptance of Rome alone, but as history shows and as shown in Acts 15:22, the Councils must be accepted by the WHOLE Church.
3. Oh, I see you think that what was once considered straight heresy can actual be used in a manner considered orthodox now? Ya, sure. What the heck!?!
4. This comment of your’s dropped my jaw! You seriously are claiming that an Ecumenical Council, which was accepted by the entire pre-schism Church (including Rome) was in ERROR!?! Now, you do realize this means that the Roman Church, who along with the rest of the pre-schism Church, accepted Error as Truth, right?

I think he clarified what he meant when he said “error”, i.e, it was in regards to Pope Honorius’s supposed heresy, and I say supposed because no one but no one could with absolute certainty claim Honorius meant “one will” in the manner the Monothelites were suggesting, as he was not there to defend himself. We are aware that Honorius could have very well meant by “one will”, a perfect will of compatibility between his human and divine will. This is why Pope Leo II stated that Honorius should be condemned not has a heretic (in the strict sense of the word) but because of his neglect:

The letter of the council to Pope Leo, asking, after the traditional manner, for confirmation of its Acts, while including again the name of Honorius among the condemned Monothelites, lay a remarkable stress on the magisterial office of the Roman Church, as, in general, the documents of the Sixth General Council favour strongly the inerrancy of the See of Peter. “The Council”, says Dom Chapman, “accepts the letter in which the Pope defined the faith. It deposes those who refused to accept it. It asks [the pope] to confirm its decisions. The Bishops and Emperor declare that they have seen the letter to contain the doctrine of the Fathers. Agatho speaks with the voice of Peter himself; from Rome the law had gone forth as out of Sion; Peter had kept the faith unaltered.” Pope Agatho died during the Council and was succeeded by Leo II, who confirmed (683) the decrees against Monothelism, and expressed himself even more harshly than the council towards the memory of Honorius (Hefele, Chapman), though he laid stress chiefly on the neglect of that pope to set forth the traditional teaching of the Apostolic See, whose spotless faith he treasonably tried to overthrow (or, as the Greek may be translated, permitted to be overthrown).

You are forgetting that you are speaking to a Catholic whose belief in the papacy finalizes every ecumenical council, thus confirming the validity of said council. This situation with Pope Leo II at the council of Constantinople III is not unlike that of the first Pope Leo who condemned canon 28 of the council of Chalcedon (we did not accept canon 28 until centuries later at another ecumenical council). Either way Honorius did not speak infallibly, i.e., with regard to the whole Church, otherwise that letter that Sergius (the patriarch of Constantinople) had, would have been in the hands of all the other bishops and patriarchs too. It was not.

p.s. I think that after 265 popes, the only reasonably conclusion is to believe in papal infallibility.

 

[pablope]

1. No, I didn’t. I answered your question by quoting the points of the Council you asked about - the decision of the Council: Acts 15: 12, 19 & 22. Yes, Peter was one of many who spoke at the Council, he wasn’t the first speaker and he wasn’t the last. I choose not to read into Sacred Scripture what isn’t there. It’s clear to see that you’re reading into it what the Catholic now teaches about the Pope - good Catholic!

Your reasoning looks like it was taken from a protestant apologetics website…

So…is leadership defined by who is first to speak or who is last to speak?

But the question you are evading is…who made the doctrinal decision…Peter or James?

To whom, in Act 10 and 11…was revealed God’s will…Peter or James?

1. Sure the revelation you’re speaking of was given to Peter and a different revelation was given only to Paul and another given only to

 

[pablope]

1. I quoted to you directly from the Sessions of the Council itself. There is no where in any of the Sessions anything remotely close to your claim that Pope Honorius was condemned for “failure to act”. As anyone who actually reads the Sessions of the Council will see Pope Honorius was specifically condemned as a Heretic and Anathametized for what he Did, for what he Taught!

Again…you seem to be selectively reading.

The findings of the EC had to be submitted to the pope for final confimation. He did not agree…Pope John IV…that is.

Did you bother to read the link I gave you? From your response…you did not…so correct me if you did.

archive.catholic.com/thisrock/1994/9409fea2.asp

From the link above: (Iinfallibility in action)

T*his was picked up as early as 640 by Pope John IV, Honorius’ successor, who pointed out that Sergius had asked only about the presence of two opposing wills. Honorius had answered accordingly, speaking, says Pope John, “only of the human and not also of the divine nature.” Pope John was right. Honorius assumed the existence of a human will in Christ by saying that his nature is like humanity’s before the Fall. No one would claim that before the Fall Adam had no will. Thus Honorius’s speaking of Christ’s assumption of a “faultless” human nature shows that he really did believe in the orthodox formula of two wills in Christ: one divine, one human, in perfect agreement. *

But a Council, of course, has no authority except insofar as its decrees are confirmed by the pope. The reigning Pontiff, Leo II, did not agree to the condemnation of his predecessor for heresy; he said Honorius should be condemned because “he permitted the immaculate faith to be subverted.” [Carroll, 254]

1. I am aware that Catholic think they depend on the acceptance of Rome alone, but as history shows and as shown in Acts 15:22, the Councils must be accepted by the WHOLE Church.

 

[tdgesq]

1. I quoted to you directly from the Sessions of the Council itself. There is no where in any of the Sessions anything remotely close to your claim that Pope Honorius was condemned for “failure to act”. As anyone who actually reads the Sessions of the Council will see Pope Honorius was specifically condemned as a Heretic and Anathametized for what he Did, for what he Taught!

1Tim, there are a number of problems with your analysis here:

1. Honorius had already been dead for years at the time of the 3rd Council of Constantinople. The only evidence of Pope Honorius’ belief in Monothelitism are the letters written to Sergius. The Council confirms this here: 13th Session.
2. The actual letter(s) to Sergius from Honorius are here: Helfe. He ultimately tells Sergius not to teach the one will (energy) of Christ, nor to teach the two wills(energies) of Christ; because he admits he doesn’t know.

More to the point, there is no way this correspondence from Honorius to Sergius meets the infallibility criterion of Vatican I. It is not a a statement made in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,in which he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church. Answering the letters of other bishops stating that he doesn’t know, and telling them not to use either formula is hardly a doctrinal declaration of Monothelitism to the entire Church.

1. Anathemas and excommunications by councils against individuals are not infallible pronouncements. They can be incorrect, and have at times been recognized as incorrect by the universal Church. Take, for example, the mutual excommunications of 1054 that were annulled by both the Catholic Church and the Orthodox. JOINT CATHOLIC-ORTHODOX DECLARATION.

In any case, all of this is a little bit far afield of original post, which is supposed to be about whether there is an official document listing all ex cathedra statements.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I understand that you were dealing with several people here, 1Tim, but it seems that you have addressed every poster who spoke to you, except for me.

So I’ll repeat. . .

Ah. But tell me, did the Orthodox (or East) before 1054, or after 1054, teach on infallibility in regard to faith and morals at all, or, to be more exact, did they teach on the nature of Truth that would not change?

Infallibility is not a magic bullet. It is simply an assurance that something in regard to faith and morals which is revealed by God as Truth will not, at some point, be revealed as NOT true.

IOW, are the moral/faith teachings found in Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magesterium absolute truths which can be depended on 100%, or not?

Does the Orthodox Church now teach that the Real Presence is found in the Eucharist, and that the Trinity is Three Divine Persons in One God? Will the Orthodox Church ever teach that the Eucharist is only symbolic, or that God is a Quartet?

If not, then those two points, at least, are infallible teachings of the Orthodox Church, are they not? Do you need to have a ‘list’ to maintain that the Truth of this, or other teachings will never change?

It reminds me of the people who cringe at words like “purgatory’ because 'that word isn’t in the BIBLE”. . .well heck, the word “BIBLE” is not in the Bible, nor is the word TRINITY there, but we surely believe those things are true, exist, and will not change.

What really is the difference, 1Tim, with a belief that the teachings of the Church on faith and morals(whether it is you speaking of the Orthodox, or me speaking of the Catholic) are protected by the Holy Spirit from being wrong? (Because from what you say, you DO believe that you are guided to 100% truth by the Holy Spirit)

 

[livingwordunity]

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

 

[Peter_J]

Where’s yours which coincides with ours till 1054?

I realize this is directed toward the Orthodox, but could you clarify: by “yours” do you mean list of infallible ex cathedra statements made by popes?

 

[Schism_hater]

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

And there is the Magisterium to clear any confusion.

So not only is the Magisterium infallible (under certain condtions) but the Magisterium decides what declarations are infallible and which are not? Wow

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

The Orthodox don’t have a “Magisterium” in the Roman Catholic sense. No one Patriarch has the powers and authority that the Pope does for Roman Catholics.

Quote:
You suggest by the passage quoted from the Bible that each individual within the Catholic Church is to personally test for themselves what Papal statements are to be considered Infallible while another Catholic poster in this thread has suggested that very Protestant line of thinking is jab against the Catholic Church.

No…only one infected with protestant thoughts would read the passage as you have. The “us” in the passage refers to those given the authority to determine truth…which falls on the bishops…the successors of the Apostles. I am sure this is your belief too.

The college of bishops is headed by the Pope.

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.

Well, without trying to define “mass confusion” there certainly is some confusion. Otherwise there would be a clear consensus on whether, for example, the teaching against contraception in Humanae Vitae was infallible.

Quote:
I can only conclude from reading the responses to this thread that Catholics have no resource to determine officially what Papal statements are Infallible and that Catholics are all over the map as to how to determine what Papal statements are or aren’t Infallib

le.

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.

Quote:
I am reaffirmed that Papal Infallibility isn’t something that is needed in the Church and have learned here that it isn’t helpful for the Faithful Christians or non-Christians

Are you the authority to make such a conclusion? Sorry…from your response…that is a sola scriptura protestant response.,and individual determines what is essential and what is needed…by your own statement…without realizing it…you just have made an infallible statement.

**It is a complete non-sequitur to say that denial of a need for Papal Infallibility is a “sola scriptura” response. The Orthodox do not resort to one isolated source of authority, whether that be scripture or a particular office of the Church. Both simplistic answers are rejected. **

 

[1Tim215Mommy]

1. In order to see that this Pre-Scism Syrian Bishop teaches that this Primacy of St. Peter was by Divine right
2. So I would ask, since Christ gave the mission to St. Peter to tend to His sheep (John 21:16, notice all of the sheep–but this does not negate that there are other Pastors who also tend to sheep…but not all), and to strengthen the brethren (Luke 22:32), doesn’t it make sense that He would pray for St. Peter’s faith (and his alone) that it would not fail (Luke 22:32)? And can’t you see that a faith that is not able to fail (unless of course you believe Jesus Christ’s prayer was not answered), implies infallibility?
3. We see in Scripture that St. Peter was given a specific office (that parallel to the Prime Minister in the Jewish Kingdom, cf. Mt. 16:18-19, Is. 22:22), and that he was equipped by Jesus to fulfill his role. And this role/office, established by Christ for the good of the Church, did not end with St. Peter.

1. I have come across this idea before, Catholics equating Primacy with both Supremacy and Infallibility. Jumping from Primacy to Supremacy or Infalliblity isn’t something the Church Fathers did and neither do we Orthodox.
2. John 21 reinstates St. Peter after he publically rejected Jesus Christ thrice. Luke 22 is Jesus praying for Peter alone because Jesus, as God, had the foreknowledge that although all the Apostles were going to leave him during his passion Peter alone would publically deny Him. It’s well known that a sinners public repentance strengthens the Faith of Christians; this is why we enjoy listening to the personal testimonies of others it encourages and strengthens our own Faith. Fr. Donald Calloway, Fr. John Corapi comes to mind (before he vanished from the public eye) and my favorite John Pridmore, their testimonies are among those provided on CD by Lighthouse Catholic Media.
3. Yes, yes, I know that is the current Catholic interpretation of those verses. It’s not the interpretation of the Church Fathers or the Orthodox Church.

Everyone, please pray for a client of mine - long story short: teen girl looking down texting on her cell while driving / business owner driving a commercial truck hauling an 8,000 lb trailer unable to stop in time when teen girl pops out in front of him. I won’t disclose which one is my client, but prayers for both requested. And Please Don’t anyone text and drive, it’s not worth it.

 

[Schism_hater]

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.

Nor SHOULD the Bishop of Rome remain silent. What is at issue is whether he can, by himself, bind the entire Church to a dogma. That is the essence of the debate over papal supremacy and infallibility.

 

[Schism_hater]

The notion that without a list Catholics just can’t know whether declarations made by Popes are infallible obviously isn’t accurate.

Really? Let’s take the bull Unam Sanctam written by Pope Boniface VIII in 1302 as an example. It is famous (or infamous) for it’s last sentence which “solemnly defines” that subjection to the Pope is necessary for salvation. Many, perhaps most Roman Catholic theologians classify this sentence as a papal utterance meeting the criteria for infallibility. However, at least one quite respected Roman Catholic theologian, the late George Tavard, claims it is not an infallible statement. He claims this in an article “The Bull Unam Sanctam of Boniface VIII” in Papal Primacy and the Universal Church, eds. Empie and Murphy (1974). Or one could take the more recent examples of the teachings in Humanae Vitae or John Paul II’s teaching on the ordination of women.