D
Would it be Possible to "Roll Back" or "Develop" V1's Papal Infallibility or is it Part of the Unchanging "Deposit of Faith"?
- Status
S
steve-b
Guest
steve-b:
Last edited:
D
Dovekin
Guest
Yes, those are “[bishop’s] opinion(s) on the advisability of issuing an ex cathedra teaching.”
V
Vonsalza
Guest
You’re probably spinning your wheels with ole Stevie, over there. I can provide proper references, if you’d like.steve-b:
Yes, those are “[bishop’s] opinion(s) on the advisability of issuing an ex cathedra teaching.”
S
steve-b
Guest
Yet the popes in the example didn’t send out an encyclical to ask their opinion on the advisability of issuing an infallible statement. If anything, it’s an example of the popes putting the breaks on making an infallible statement.steve-b:
Yes, those are “[bishop’s] opinion(s) on the advisability of issuing an ex cathedra teaching.”
Last edited:
D
Dovekin
Guest
Exactly. I cited these encyclicals as evidence that the Church practice on infallibility has been moving away from a dogmatic pronouncement by the Pope toward a joint affirmation of the world’s bishops. “Putting on the brakes” or “rollback” are not terms I would use, but those terms are reaching for the meaning of what has been happening.
Also, when I talked about “the advisability of issuing an ex cathedra teaching” I did not mean it generically. Pius IX asked about issuing a declaration on IC, and Pius XII asked about the Assumption. The subtitle of Pius XII’s encyclical is “Should We Define the Assumption?” The Popes took the responses to these encyclicals as the basis for their ex cathedra teachings.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
I think that’s an excellent example of the thinking of most rational and cautious Catholics who look at Papal Infallibility and wish to downplay the absolutely awesome opportunity for abuse that it creates. And to be sure, we widely recognize that the abuse of the power, or even just frequent invocation would be highly destructive to the Church.
But unfortunately, Steve-B is right about one thing;
For groups like The Old Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox, the only men that have no bounds are either dead or in heaven. As such, infallibility rests in the lap of Christ and none other (at least singularly).
I started this thread to get Catholic perspectives on what I felt was the most pertinent question in reuniting the Church under one banner. And it seems that the answers to the two questions are “probably not” and “probably”. Schism is set in stone.
Catholics claim the papacy as one of the key sources of unity. From where I stand as a student of Christian history, it appears that there is no greater or more frequent source of division in Christianity than the papacy. And it seems there’s no real reason to expect that to change.
Thanks for the replies!
But unfortunately, Steve-B is right about one thing;
In short, a pope can’t over-step his bounds because he doesn’t have any. At least, none in the temporal sense. If the rest of the Church catholic disagrees, tough! per Vatican 1.
For groups like The Old Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox, the only men that have no bounds are either dead or in heaven. As such, infallibility rests in the lap of Christ and none other (at least singularly).
I started this thread to get Catholic perspectives on what I felt was the most pertinent question in reuniting the Church under one banner. And it seems that the answers to the two questions are “probably not” and “probably”. Schism is set in stone.
Catholics claim the papacy as one of the key sources of unity. From where I stand as a student of Christian history, it appears that there is no greater or more frequent source of division in Christianity than the papacy. And it seems there’s no real reason to expect that to change.
Thanks for the replies!
Last edited:
D
Dovekin
Guest
This is a complex situation, getting complexier.
You believe the Spirit is leading the Church, as do I. It is that Spirit that will lead us to unity, past the thickets of problems we cannot figure out.
S
steve-b
Guest
Re: the underlined, how so?steve-b:
Exactly. I cited these encyclicals as evidence that the Church practice on infallibility has been moving away from a dogmatic pronouncement by the Pope toward a joint affirmation of the world’s bishops. “Putting on the brakes” or “rollback” are not terms I would use, but those terms are reaching for the meaning of what has been happening.
Re: Vat I , and the definition of papal infallibility, I gave back a few posts ago shows the direction.
I haven’t seen directions from Ecumenical councils oppose or reverse course of a previous E council. If you have an example, please post it.
Last edited:
V
Vonsalza
Guest
It’s never phrased as “opposition” or “reversal”.
“Development” is the word Catholic scholars use.
I thought we all already knew that…
“Development” is the word Catholic scholars use.
I thought we all already knew that…
F
FollowChrist34
Guest
Good luck.
S
steve-b
Guest
the underlined text isn’t describing “development”.
From Vat I
“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.”
Last edited:
D
Dovekin
Guest
In one understanding, the Pope on his own can issue teachings that are binding on everyone. “If the rest of the Church catholic disagrees, tough! per Vatican 1”
This understanding is not what V1 intended, as evidenced by their identification of the primary infallibility, that of the Church, among other things.
The same dogmatic pronouncement can instead be understood as an affirmation by the world’s bishops of the faith of the Church. This, I believe, is what was intended at V1. The encyclicals cited show that this was the understanding of the popes who wrote them.
This understanding is not what V1 intended, as evidenced by their identification of the primary infallibility, that of the Church, among other things.
The same dogmatic pronouncement can instead be understood as an affirmation by the world’s bishops of the faith of the Church. This, I believe, is what was intended at V1. The encyclicals cited show that this was the understanding of the popes who wrote them.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
To be Frank, I hope you’re right. Really.
There was so much initial concern over V1 and “where infallibility stops” that the German chancellor set about reinforcing alliances in case the Pope ever wished to call for the conquest of a nation as a matter of “faith and morals”.
Thankfully, the chancellor’s concerns seem to be a bit over the top, but the problem remains that there is no real mechanism to place a check on the Pope aside from the holy spirit.
And judging by the conduct of several popes in history, the spirit seems very slow to restrain free moral agency.
If there was a requirement levied of an affirmational quorum of bishops set in place (made possible by modern technology) in the instance of infallible decrees, that would be an enormous move toward progress.
After all, how could one argue that the spirit rightly led the Pope but not most bishops of the church?
But it seems that there are plenty of Catholics that would resist this tooth-and-nail as a violation of V1. The question becomes “which schism would be worse” instead of “how do we avoid schism”.
Interesting matter. Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut.
There was so much initial concern over V1 and “where infallibility stops” that the German chancellor set about reinforcing alliances in case the Pope ever wished to call for the conquest of a nation as a matter of “faith and morals”.
Thankfully, the chancellor’s concerns seem to be a bit over the top, but the problem remains that there is no real mechanism to place a check on the Pope aside from the holy spirit.
And judging by the conduct of several popes in history, the spirit seems very slow to restrain free moral agency.
If there was a requirement levied of an affirmational quorum of bishops set in place (made possible by modern technology) in the instance of infallible decrees, that would be an enormous move toward progress.
After all, how could one argue that the spirit rightly led the Pope but not most bishops of the church?
But it seems that there are plenty of Catholics that would resist this tooth-and-nail as a violation of V1. The question becomes “which schism would be worse” instead of “how do we avoid schism”.
Interesting matter. Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut.
J
jcrichton
Guest
Actually, we are not. You are fishing for cube critters so your tv dinners can be presented as square meals (thought I throw in more muck into the exchange).
What I have stated is that the Unfolding of Christ’s Design about Salvation and the Church is found right from Scriptures. The deduction is only required to put together Scriptures and what I’ve stated–which runs counter to your claims.
Let’s try “piece work:”
I can’t explain it any clearer!
Exactly because you (you, the East and the non-Catholics) seek autonomy. You want to divine the mind of God through man’s understanding even and in spite of Christ Direct Delegation: 'Peter, do you Love Me more than these? Feed My Lamb (the Founding Church), Feed My Sheep (the Universal Church). No one else was given the Keys to the Kingdom and no one else was Delegated the Obligation of Nourishing (leading and maintaining) the Body of Christ: the Church.
Yes, the biased understanding that I Follow Christ not man nor any “feel good” theology. So when Christ Calls Peter the Rock on which He Builds the Church and when He Delegates His Authority passing onto Cephas the Obligation of the Office, I don’t second guess Him nor seek venues that allow me to circumvent His Commands.
Maran atha!
Angel
J
jcrichton
Guest
You mean like the Obama administration vote to have “Christians” practice their “Faith” in the parish/religious buildings and in their homes as long as they agree with secular values and support the culture of death?
Maran atha!
Angel
J
jcrichton
Guest
Yeah, I stopped drinking coffee, eating meat, eating fish, gambling, etc. etc. etc. every time a Pope made an infallible claim… oh wait; that’s non-Catholics and those of the East that keep realigning the does and don’ts… my bad!
Maran atha!
Angel
J
jcrichton
Guest
I would dare say: ‘we do not want to figure out’ since this means giving up self-rule.
Maran atha!
Angel
S
steve-b
Guest
What’s highlighted, is obviously NOT what Vat I states. What I’m responding to is your mischaracterizations
sessions 1-4 of VAT I
in particular may I suggest reading all 4 chapters of session 4, not just ch 4 only
Intratext Vat I session 4 ch’s 1-4
Last edited:
J
jcrichton
Guest
Jesus made this clear when He stated that the tree is known by its fruit!
Maran atha!
Angel
- Status