Would it be Possible to "Roll Back" or "Develop" V1's Papal Infallibility or is it Part of the Unchanging "Deposit of Faith"?

[Vonsalza]

Only by removing the Church’s Authority can I or anyone else exercise self-autonomy with all the freedoms and liberties we “have a right to exercise.”

Lucifer once taught as much!

Now the papacy teaches that very thing. Church authority no longer absolutely resides in the body of bishops. Absolute Church authority now lies exclusively in the papacy (at least for Catholics).

 

[sewnolivette]

I would argue as a protestant thinking seriously of becoming Catholic, that the need for papal infallibility is made evident, by the fact that there are over 30,000+ denominations in the protestant world, most of which are moving toward secularism or, at the very least, adopting the worldly understandings of marriage, personhood, etc.

The consistent message of the Catholic church throughout the last two millenia is very appealing to this protestant.

 

[Vonsalza]

I completely agree that the Church, if it exists, cannot be “restored”. It opens the flood gates to virtually anything.

It’s either ancient and apostolic, or it isn’t there at all.

For me, it boils down to Catholicism vs. Orthodoxy.

 

[neophyte]

Would it be possible within Catholicism to either roll back/nullify a council or further develop the definition of papal infallibility in a way where the bishop of Rome no longer holds the power to unilaterally proclaim doctrine that is supposedly binding upon all Christendom?

No.
10 characters.

 

[jcrichton]

Irrelevant to the point. You indicated that the pope acts with the body of bishops. Here he clearly didn’t.

Did the Pope just simply say ‘this is what we must do?’

Were the Bishops not allowed to make their statements?

If the Bishops teach, as it happened in the past, that Christ is not really true God, the Pope cannot simply follow suit and go along with them. He must stay true to the Truth:

2 By this is the spirit of God known. Every spirit which confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is of God: 3 And every spirit that dissolveth Jesus, is not of God: and this is Antichrist, of whom you have heard that he cometh, and he is now already in the world. (1 St. John 4)

As with Arianism, the Bishops have to work together, in humble obedience to the Holy Spirit, to allow God’s Design to be Unfolded:

The Cappadocian Fathers came to accept the term homoousios. Athanasius, on the other hand, accepted the Cappadocian formula for the Trinity - one substance (ousia) in three persons (hypostaseis). (http://www.islamtomorrow.com/bible/Arianism_vs_council_nicaea.htm)

Not talking about abortion. Talking about birth control in the context of whether the pope can act unilaterally apart from the body of bishops. He clearly can as Catholicism sees it.

Because the Pope must remain Christ’s Sentry–even when the Bishops buy what the world is selling, the Office Delegated to Cephas cannot just follow suit (friendship with the world pits one at enmity with God).

The before contraception was embraced by society the Office of Cephas contended that evil, not good would follow–as it has: divorce, remarriage, promiscuity, adultery, abandonment of children/family, disposable children, abortion as contraceptive… the Pope warned the world; the world embraced contraception; Christianity follows in the ways of the world while, simultaneously, wanting to claim obedience to God.

We cannot separate the “effect” from the “cause.” The Pope was right and he continues to Teach rightly that contraception is a device of wickedness and disobedience (my own words).

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

For me, it boils down to Catholicism vs. Orthodoxy.

But not even that since you stated above “if it exists.”

You are countering the Apostles and Christ!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

Irrelevant to the point. You indicated that the pope acts with the body of bishops. Here he clearly didn’t.

Did the Pope just simply say ‘this is what we must do?’

Ultimately? Yes…

If the Bishops teach, as it happened in the past, that Christ is not really true God, the Pope cannot simply follow suit and go along with them. He must stay true to the Truth:

Never in Church history has the body of bishops held the majority position that Christ is not really the true God. Such a position would require the death of the Holy Spirit. Impossible.

But not even that since you stated above “if it exists.”

You are countering the Apostles and Christ!

I am a man looking at Christianity in the 21st century. It is to Christ and the apostles that I look to identify it. And absolutely nowhere do they show me a modern understanding of the papacy that is infallible, supreme and immediate.

Those are developments - said with less and less ambiguity the more I study them.

“I can do no other”

For a Church that claims to be “one”, the papacy is probably the single thing that has spawned more division in Christendom than any other idea. Thus I take claims of it being a source of unity with a substantial grain of salt.

 

[commenter]

I have seen no document that proves the college of bishops as a whole disagree with Humanae Vitae. In any event, Pope Paul still had authority to reaffirm what was taught already by previous popes a d Vatican 2.

Eastern orthodoxy changed it’s position on birth control.

 

[Vonsalza]

I have seen no document that proves the college of bishops as a whole disagree with Humanae Vitae.

Me neither. I doubt a poll of all 3000 or so at the time was done.

But the Pontifical Commission was formed and it voted for allowing bc 65 to 4, or something like that?

Eastern orthodoxy changed it’s position on birth control.

They did (I wasn’t aware there was a fixed “Orthodox” position)?
Link?

 

[babochka]

However, the filioque would have to be resolved as well, which is a whole 'nother thread

Or it could simply be ignored as something which should not impede unity. There is precedent for this in the Union of Brest.

1.—Since there is a quarrel between the Romans and Greeks about the procession of the Holy Spirit, which greatly impede unity really for no other reason than that we do not wish to understand one another—we ask that we should not be compelled to any other creed but that we should remain with that which was handed down to us in the Holy Scriptures, in the Gospel, and in the writings of the holy Greek Doctors, that is, that the Holy Spirit proceeds, not from two sources and not by a double procession, but from one origin, from the Father through the Son

.

 

[jcrichton]

Ultimately? Yes…

But he allowed the exchange to take place.

If there’s a young child in your home and he/she goes over to play at the neighbor’s yard would you not be remised of your authority and obligation if you simply “believe” that the child is “safe” from harm? Do you not need to engage? An unattended child with a dog, pool, older children, open yard (or access to the street) is a dangerous situation.

The Pope simply allowing secular values to filter into the Church and allowing the Bishops to vote these values into the Church through “feel-good” means is a dereliction of his Office.

Everyone has an opinion. When that opinion replaces God’s Teaching, it is the opinion that must be changed not God’s Teaching.

Never in Church history has the body of bishops held the majority position that Christ is not really the true God. Such a position would require the death of the Holy Spirit. Impossible.

Arianism, for one. Christ is not truly God but a subject of God.

I am a man looking at Christianity in the 21st century. It is to Christ and the apostles that I look to identify it. And absolutely nowhere do they show me a modern understanding of the papacy that is infallible, supreme and immediate.

Those are developments - said with less and less ambiguity the more I study them.

“I can do no other”

For a Church that claims to be “one”, the papacy is probably the single thing that has spawned more division in Christendom than any other idea. Thus I take claims of it being a source of unity with a substantial grain of salt.

Because man has a “need” for “autonomy!”

When everyone claims Christ and set their own “rules and regulation” are they truly seeking to serve or be served?

Look at the Jewish community; it is a tiny pocket of Believers, yet there’s not one single school of thought that moderates them. They are divided in schools that follow “xyz” leader; now, they are incorporating nuances as homosexuality and female rabbis as part of those separate schools.

Christendom has suffered not because of one Office but because of the need to be autonomous. It is easy to claim the one Office is at fault; yet, Scriptures do not Teach autonomy:

30 He that is not with me, is against me: and he that gathereth not with me, scattereth. (St. Matthew 12)

Schism/splintering is not the answer; it never has been!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[commenter]

But the Pontifical Commission was formed and it voted for allowing bc 65 to 4, or something like that?

No, nothing like that. We are talking mostly laity here, not bishops.

 

[commenter]

Eastern orthodoxy changed it’s position on birth control.

Is there a fixed EO position on abortion? Among Protestants both bc and abortion were once fixed positions (natural law,). The slipslide on one led to the slipslide on
The other.
This often happens when there is no Pope.

 

[semper_catholicus]

It’s part of the deposit of faith.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

Ultimately? Yes…

But he allowed the exchange to take place.

How very gracious of him. But my answer remains the same, unfortunately.

Vonsalza:

Never in Church history has the body of bishops held the majority position that Christ is not really the true God. Such a position would require the death of the Holy Spirit. Impossible.

Arianism, for one.

When where there more Arian bishops in the Church? I know it got popular, but is there a reference for this as a majority position - as your rebuttal would clearly require?

Because man has a “need” for “autonomy!”

He also has a “need” for power and it’s increase and concentration - a possible explanation for “papal development” for those unfortunate souls who don’t think it was a supernatural occurrence.

Christendom has suffered not because of one Office but because of the need to be autonomous. It is easy to claim the one Office is at fault; yet, Scriptures do not Teach autonomy:

Neither do the scriptures teach supreme and infallible and immediate papacy. The truth is surely somewhere between these two poles.

May I suggest “The College of Bishops” with the pope as an honorary head?

Schism/splintering is not the answer; it never has been!

Amen. Then let us set aside these clear “developments” in papal power that has caused so much schism and return to unified brotherhood!

 

[jcrichton]

It’s part of the deposit of faith.

Exactly!

It is the reason why the Pope does not make daily “pronouncements” or constantly change Doctrine/Credo of Faith.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

But the Pontifical Commission was formed and it voted for allowing bc 65 to 4, or something like that?

No, nothing like that. We are talking mostly laity here, not bishops.

It was a body assembled by the pope within the Roman Curia that absolutely contained bishops (and cardinals) and it voted in favor of bc exactly 64-5.

If you consider a pontifical committee of the Curia as a relatively unimportant and non-representative body, fine with me. I just think most Catholics would disagree.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

Eastern orthodoxy changed it’s position on birth control.

Is there a fixed EO position on abortion? Among Protestants both bc and abortion were once fixed positions (natural law,). The slipslide on one led to the slipslide on
The other.
This often happens when there is no Pope.

I didn’t think you had any reference for the comment, either.

 

[Vonsalza]

semper_catholicus:

It’s part of the deposit of faith.

Exactly!

It is the reason why the Pope does not make daily “pronouncements” or constantly change Doctrine/Credo of Faith.

Maran atha!

Angel

Constantly? Of course not. It’d kill the Church.

But the Filioque issue is a good example where the pope did exactly what you claim he doesn’t do - unilaterally change a Credo of the Faith.

 

[jcrichton]

How very gracious of him. But my answer remains the same, unfortunately.

Of course; you are the immovable mountain, so to speak; reason does not even make a dent.

When where there more Arian bishops in the Church? I know it got popular, but is there a reference for this as a majority position - as your rebuttal would clearly require?

Did you not follow the link?

He also has a “need” for power and it’s increase and concentration - a possible explanation for “papal development” for those unfortunate souls who don’t think it was a supernatural occurrence.

So you go to a weak agent because the Catholic Power scares you?

Neither do the scriptures teach supreme and infallible and immediate papacy. The truth is surely somewhere between these two poles.

May I suggest “The College of Bishops” with the pope as an honorary head?

Really? Is that why Cephas was called the first Disciple of Christ while he was introduced to Christ by his brother?

Maran atha!

Angel