Yes. I would agree that heaven is a living, personal, relationship with the Holy Trinity. But the witness of Holy Tradition is favor of it also being a place with some type of physicality. Christ is still incarnate sitting at the right hand of the Father. He did not discard His body after the Ascension, but rather fully deified it. He remains forever fully God and fully man unto the ages. He ate fish and honeycomb after the Resurrection even as He passed through walls. There is a mystery to this new body that is beyond my experience–but to simply say that Heaven and Hell are a state of being is to discard the physical in favor of overemphasizing the spiritual.
It could be viewed as such by the EO, furthermore papal infallibility wasn’t even defined until Vatican I, hence wasn’t properly used as we now understand it (pope speaking ex cathedra) until Vatican I, the fact that papal infallibility wasn’t used(before Vatican I), as it is used now, doesn’t change the universal truth of papal infallibility even before Vatican I (whew that’s a mouthful).
In reality yes they probably would, but as I said earlier in this made up story let’s say they agree to it.
Hopefully so, but I agree, one would probably be holding their breath for quite a long time.
Yes… it was understood that Rome (“First See”) was inerrant mostly. Or that Rome’s Faith will not fail. Back then, it wasn’t as Pope-centric view… but in the end means the same thing as See of Rome does not exist outside it’s Bishop, and Bishop determines where See of Rome is and is not.
Problem is one can not infallibly declare that. Pope can declare dogmas or something concerning morals… this is neither. It wouldn’t even apply to Catholics, just to succeeding Popes who can disregard this because it does not meet criteria for infallibility.
Well, some people on CAF said that Orthodoxy does not actually view Papal Infallibility as negatively because it is likely not going to be used anymore. I am not exactly sure about how this works. I’ve read one Orthodox article explain how Catholic definition of Papal Infallibility isn’t even a problem because it states how Pope basically guards what was handed down and does not make something new. I am not entirely sure… after all Orthodoxy is somewhat complicated because “as a whole”, it has no really united view on Rome or Catholicism at that.
Lord does will it of course… for us to be one. But He will allow us to live in division humans have created per His infinite justice. Likewise, through his mercy He may unite us whenever He wishes to. I do think that Chieti Document went into correct sources but somehow disregarded them while writing the summary. In the footnotes it clearly states that Popes could re-judge any trial anywhere according to Sardica (and implied heavily by Chalcedon)… yet states Popes had no jurisdiction over East. This fiction would mean that Popes could hold re-trials but they were not binding- something that canons do not imply. All in all, I think terminology in Chieti Document is pretty off- it should state that Popes exercised no immediate jurisdiction over East… but jurisdiction in appellate form was present. I actually learned a lot about defending history of Papal jurisdiction from Chieti Document… but from footnotes mostly.
Exactly, and I think for arguments sake, that the EOC (at least in my scenario) could possibly except this view of papal infallibility, I think the Pope-centric formula is the major stumbling block for the East.
Either the Pope can make an infallible proclamation (ex cathedra) or he can’t, it’s not either or either, and if Pope X infallibly proclaims something, Pope Y and Pope Z etc. cannot disregard it otherwise they disprove the whole point of papal infallibility.
More than not a dogma–both calendars don’t get it right.
Yet those folks calculate it with a calendar that yields a result contrary to Nicea . . .
This just shows that you’re bad at relativistic Physics . . . simply adding relativistic velocities is not a linear operation . . .
you don’t even have to be near the speed; it’s just that for human observable speeds, the error is below the threshold of measurement.
Heaven is with God, and not-Heaven is without God.
Because having to abstain from something dogmatic is not a dogma. Actually dogma is quite contrary… combine dogmas of “Pope can speak infallibly” and “Truth is not relative”… and you just got contradiction in what the Pope X said. Not only does that go against principle of charity and revealed Truth, it kinda does not concern anything dogmatic. There is no article of faith handed down to Successors of Peter that says they shouldn’t exercise their ministry to assist East. On the contrary, actually. And infallibility was not given to Peter’s Successors to make up new faith, but to preserve what has been handed down (that’s part of declaration of dogma of Papal Infallibility IIRC), hence this directly contradicts very dogmatic declaration of Papal Infallibility itself.
Well, quite popular “dad joke” over here is that if you ask someone “What time is it?”, they ask “Where?”. It’s not that Truth is relative, it is that definitions matter. I can answer with any time (well, not any but you get the idea) and be correct because it indeed is that time somewhere on the planet… and if we disregard timezones and go by true geographical local time, one can even say it is any time without the things in the brackets. That does not mean Truth is relative, but that question is worded ambiguously… something we have learned to live with, but as a programmer you notice these kinds of things
As Pope Benedict XVI said, the Holy Spirit does not elect the pope. Men do.
So then what was the correct date?