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

[jcrichton]

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

Yes, let’s turn to the wisdom of every-person as his/her own authority–this has worked so well for the non-Catholics!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

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.

Could you demonstrate through quoted text?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

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.

Because you almost never directly answer the objection, you typically redirect with a counter-point

-Which is fine, but when you do that, the objection still remains for those smart enough to follow along…

Did you not follow the link?

I checked again - you didn’t provide one.

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

The “weak agent” being the body of bishops?

I go to that because it seems to be the model Christ handed to us, led (but not ruled) by Peter.

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

Here you have a minor error in your learning;

Andrew is the first disciple.

The next day John was there again with two of his disciples. When he saw Jesus passing by, he said, “Look, the Lamb of God!” When the two disciples heard him say this, they followed Jesus… Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother, was one of the two who heard what John had said and who had followed Jesus. The first thing Andrew did was to find his brother Simon and tell him, “We have found the Messiah”.

Andrew is often called the Protokletos or “first-called”

Not a big deal, but for future reference…

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

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

Yes, let’s turn to the wisdom of every-person as his/her own authority–this has worked so well for the non-Catholics!

Maran atha!

Angel

No, I appeal to the wisdom of the College of Bishops. You intentionally misunderstand/misrepresent.

 

[twf]

Yes and no. Pope Bl Paul VI simply reaffirmed what the college of bishops had consistently taught in every time and place down through the ages. The ordinary Magisterium of the bishops in union with the pope is infallible. That individual contemporary bishops disagreed didn’t change the overall witness of the episcopate.
The Pope never acts in a vacuum. He is a servant of tradition as handed down by the bishops.

 

[jcrichton]

Because you almost never directly answer the objection, you typically redirect with a counter-point

Actually, anyone can deduce the answer; the counter points are only a supportive mechanism.

I checked again - you didn’t provide one

Here it is again:

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). (Arianism Versus the Council of Nicaea)

Here you have a minor error in your learning;

Andrew is the first disciple.

But you do not follow; while it is true that chronologically Andrew introduces Simon to Jesus, Scriptures turn over that chronology on its head:

2These are the names of the twelve apostles: first, Simon (who is called Peter) and his brother Andrew; James son of Zebedee, and his brother John; (St. Matthew 10)
16These are the twelve he appointed: Simon (to whom he gave the name Peter), (St. Mark 3)

Unless we are to determine that both St. Matthew and St. Mark were papist and wanted to place Cephas first, we must accept that the Apostles themselves understood Christ’s Selection and Delegation of Simon.

Not a big deal, but for future reference…

Your problem is not with the future nor with me; it is with Scriptures.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

No, I appeal to the wisdom of the College of Bishops. You intentionally misunderstand/misrepresent.

How?

It seems that you are amiss as twf has clarified for you:

Yes and no. Pope Bl Paul VI simply reaffirmed what the college of bishops had consistently taught in every time and place down through the ages. The ordinary Magisterium of the bishops in union with the pope is infallible. That individual contemporary bishops disagreed didn’t change the overall witness of the episcopate.
The Pope never acts in a vacuum. He is a servant of tradition as handed down by the bishops.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

Because you almost never directly answer the objection, you typically redirect with a counter-point

Actually, anyone can deduce the answer; the counter points are only a supportive mechanism.

Ok, so then the modern catholic understanding of the papacy is not directly present in the scriptures then. It requires deduction, which is an interpretive act.

Very good. This is some progress.

Is it possible, or even probable, that your penchant to interpret scriptures with a papist leaning comes from the existence of this leaning before you began consulting the scriptures?

Here it is again:

Hmmm… I don’t see where it says the majority of the body of bishops were Arians… How far down is the reference in the text? I’ll agree Arianism was a big controversy. But I see no evidence for your claim that it was the majority position within Church leadership (thus requiring papal action to offset) - which is what you’re trying to evidence here, in case you forgot.

But you do not follow; while it is true that chronologically Andrew introduces Simon to Jesus, Scriptures turn over that chronology on its head:

Oh, you mean “first” as “Primus”. Neither I nor any form of Orthodoxy has any problem with that.

Our problem, obviously, is over what “first” means in terms of power he enjoys exclusive from other apostles.

First among equals? A primacy of honor? Sure!

Supreme, infallible, immediate? Not in the text… (It’s “deduced”, as you say )

Your problem is not with the future nor with me; it is with Scriptures.

Your problem seems to be your biased “deduction” of material not present in the scriptures, tbh.

Vonsalza:

No, I appeal to the wisdom of the College of Bishops. You intentionally misunderstand/misrepresent.

How?

Because in your mind, the rejection of the Catholic understanding of the Petrine Function equals “Yes, let’s turn to the wisdom of every-person as his/her own authority” (your text).

This is a false dichotomy as the option I advocate for is rule by the college of bishops with Peter as the head.

 

[warrior18]

I know this is Lifesite news, but I thought it had some good explanations of the Chair of Peter’s power:
Cardinal Burke’s talk on the limits of papal power, specifically how it aligns with the rest of the magisterium.

FULL TEXT: Cardinal Burke's talk on the limits of papal power - LifeSite

 

[Usagi]

To return to the original question, I think it likely that reunion with the Orthodox would require the Pope to return to his earlier role as a “court of final appeal” when bishops or groups of bishops disagree, rather than an authority who proactively steps in. Something like the U.S. Supreme Court, which has the authority to interpret the Constitution and strike down laws that are in opposition to it, but cannot act until a case is brought before it after passing through the lower courts.

I suppose that could be seen as rolling back the “immediate jurisdiction” element of papal primacy. I believe something similar is already done with regard to the Eastern Catholic Churches, though I know from complaints of past “Latinization” that that sort of hands-off treatment has not always been the case.

The Pope is sometimes called “Patriarch of the West.” Perhaps it could be agreed that the full, Catholic-style exercise of his authority applies to the Latin West, but that he ought not to reach into other patriarchs’ territories unless he is asked to help resolve a dispute?

 

[steve-b]

Following the example of Pope Pius IX, who with his encyclical Ubi Primum canvassed Catholic bishops before proclaiming the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, Pius XII asks all bishops for their opinion. [in his encyclical Deiparae Virginis Mariae]

This is one reason I do not think John Paul II did not define anything infallibly, because he did not formally ask for agreement in this manner. This has become part of the tradition surrounding the exercise of infallibility.

Others disagree with me.

Re: your last point. For clarification,

From:

Vat I

Canons April 1870

Ch 4

On the infallible teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff

(emphasis mine)

1. “Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.

So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.”

IOW the pope doesn’t need a vote or receive consensus or ask permission to make an infallible teaching

 

[Vonsalza]

Right. As long as he provides the appropriate flags indicating “Simon Says (Infallibly)”, Catholics the world-over must submit fully to absolutely whatever proceeds next from his lips.

 

[twf]

He doesn’t “make” infallible teachings. He teaches the tradition handed down to him and sometimes that teaching is protected by the charism of infallibility. As the ordinary Magisterium of the episcopate as a whole is also infallible, logically the Pope must agree with the consensus of the episcopate down through the ages… the canon you cite simply means he doesn’t have to actively petition the current episcopate to teach in a binding manner.

 

[steve-b]

He doesn’t “make” infallible teachings. He teaches the tradition handed down to him and sometimes that teaching is protected by the charism of infallibility. As the ordinary Magisterium of the episcopate as a whole is also infallible, logically the Pope must agree with the consensus of the episcopate down through the ages… the canon you cite simply means he doesn’t have to actively petition the current episcopate to teach in a binding manner.

People can read the canon for themselves.

“we” as in the council of bishops at Vat I,

wrote

1. "we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable."

However,

"Vatican II explained the doctrine of infallibility as follows: “Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they can nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly. This is so, even when they are dispersed around the world, provided that while maintaining the bond of unity among themselves and with Peter’s successor, and while teaching authentically on a matter of faith or morals, they concur in a single viewpoint as the one which must be held conclusively. This authority is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church. Their definitions must then be adhered to with the submission of faith” Lumen Gentium 25.

From Papal Infallibility | Catholic Answers

 

[Dovekin]

The Pope’s infallible teachings will be affirmed by the Church, as Vatican Ii affirms. Those teachings are irreformable without regard to that affirmation.

But that does not mean that the Pope cannot or should not consult with the world’s bishops before he issues irreformable teaching. As it happens, the Tradition is that the Pope in fact has consulted with the world’s bishops, using one of his most important types of document, the encyclical. I do not see any reason why this tradition would not continue, even though it is not a veto on the doctrine.

This Tradition, which has developed over the last 200 years, is a movement toward the kind of relationship between bishops and Pope that the Orthodox believe in.

 

[steve-b]

The Pope’s infallible teachings will be affirmed by the Church, as Vatican Ii affirms. Those teachings are irreformable without regard to that affirmation.

But that does not mean that the Pope cannot or should not consult with the world’s bishops before he issues irreformable teaching. As it happens, the Tradition is that the Pope in fact has consulted with the world’s bishops, using one of his most important types of document, the encyclical. I do not see any reason why this tradition would not continue, even though it is not a veto on the doctrine.

This Tradition, which has developed over the last 200 years, is a movement toward the kind of relationship between bishops and Pope that the Orthodox believe in.

Can you show with references, where the 1st and 2nd points are a reality among the Orthodox?

 

[Dovekin]

What?

We are discussing Catholic theology. Why would you think either point is a reality among the Orthodox? I did not say anything like that.

I did say that the Pope consulting the world’s bishops is closer to how the Orthodox understand how teaching works.

 

[steve-b]

What?

We are discussing Catholic theology. Why would you think either point is a reality among the Orthodox? I did not say anything like that.

I did say that the Pope consulting the world’s bishops is closer to how the Orthodox understand how teaching works.

You’re kidding right?

Read your post that I responded to.

The Pope’s infallible teachings will be affirmed by the Church, as Vatican Ii affirms. Those teachings are irreformable without regard to that affirmation.

But that does not mean that the Pope cannot or should not consult with the world’s bishops before he issues irreformable teaching. As it happens, the Tradition is that the Pope in fact has consulted with the world’s bishops, using one of his most important types of document, the encyclical. I do not see any reason why this tradition would not continue, even though it is not a veto on the doctrine.

This Tradition, which has developed over the last 200 years, is a movement toward the kind of relationship between bishops and Pope that the Orthodox believe in.

I’m asking you to explain that point, with proper references of course.

 

[Dovekin]

the Tradition refers to sending encyclicals among the world’s bishops to ask their opinion on the advisability of issuing an ex cathedra teaching.

This Tradition developed with the issuing of the teachings on on Mary, IC and Assumption, both of which happened within the last 200 years.

This Tradition reflects an inclusion of the world’s bishops in the process of issuing an ex cathedra teaching.

The inclusion of the world’s bishops in issuing a binding, universal teaching is closer to Orthodox ideas about universal teaching than having the Pope do it on his own.

The first 3 are purely catholic teaching, having nothing specificaly to do with Orthodox teaching. The fourth makes a claim that a) Orthodox believe universal teaching requires the participation of the world’s bishops (Usually in a Council) and b) Pope consulting bishops is closer to such conciliar teaching than the Pope teaching without consulting.

4a is the only part that is about the Orthodox, everything else is about Catholicism.

I won’t give proper references unless you specifiy a style manual to follow. Even then, I am not inclined to cite source because you have shown an inability to understand sources.

 

[steve-b]

the Tradition refers to sending encyclicals among the world’s bishops to ask their opinion on the advisability of issuing an ex cathedra teaching.

Is that the reason for an encyclical?

Dovekin:

This Tradition developed with the issuing of the teachings on on Mary, IC and Assumption, both of which happened within the last 200 years.

This Tradition reflects an inclusion of the world’s bishops in the process of issuing an ex cathedra teaching.

The inclusion of the world’s bishops in issuing a binding, universal teaching is closer to Orthodox ideas about universal teaching than having the Pope do it on his own.

The first 3 are purely catholic teaching, having nothing specificaly to do with Orthodox teaching. The fourth makes a claim that a) Orthodox believe universal teaching requires the participation of the world’s bishops (Usually in a Council) and b) Pope consulting bishops is closer to such conciliar teaching than the Pope teaching without consulting.

4a is the only part that is about the Orthodox, everything else is about Catholicism.

I won’t give proper references unless you specifiy a style manual to follow. Even then, I am not inclined to cite source because you have shown an inability to understand sources.

That’s what we call a double reverse swerve with a triple twist

You didn’t answer my question (properly referenced) about the Orthodox HERE

Where is that so, properly referenced