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

[steve-b]

So you agree with me?

Papal infallibility is limited to teaching what the universal Church believes.

The statement was

“it is impossible that the whole body of bishops can be separated from their head or that the universal Church” can fail"

2 statements there

1. the whole body, = 100% of the bishops.
2. the universal Church = the Catholic Church

What’s being said is that it’s impossible for 100% of the bishops to be separated from their head(the pope) & the Catholic Church can’t fail.

I agree with both

 

[Gingersnaps4]

There is probably more to the primacy of Peter than just what is in the scriptures. It could be from Sacred Tradition as well. I just noticed that the scriptures not spelling things out in complete detail so people can know for sure what it means a thousand years later is being used to say the Pope shouldn’t be infallible, so I thought I would mention it. Usually when a pronouncement is made (like declaring the pope infallible, in this case) it is something being defined officially that had already been understood to be true.

I see it this way… Jesus said that the Church he founded would be protected by the Holy Spirit. So if the pope being able to make infallible teachings was something that God wouldn’t want, it wouldn’t have happened in the first place. That would be a pretty big breach of God’s Truth to have his Church doing everything all wrong from the top down, after all.

 

[jcrichton]

If you don’t have anything constructive to add, I’d refrain from responding. When folks try to poison wells, draft strawmen or otherwise attempt to assassinate their opponent’s character, they absolutely hemorrhage credibility.

Hey great vocabulary.

Have you considered a novel?

I responded to what has been offered.

Credibility is not something that one can determine by selective reasoning. Follow the full exchange and you will find that I do not poison the well/s.

However, if having a different understanding means that I poison the well… well the well will have to germinate or is it churn.

Just don’t claim stuff and I won’t have to refute it.

Right. “Peter and John”. Seems to fit the Orthodox view pretty well…

So who actually was speaking? …did they both voiced the exact same thing at the exact same time?

I suggest taking a few deep breaths before replying further. You’re getting a bit vitriolic in the face of what is otherwise rational discussion.

Actually, I was bringing up these points because you claim that the Papacy is what keeps the Catholic Church in disunity.

It’s easy to claim that the West is the foe even and in spite of historical accounts that the West is not the foe but the one instrument that keeps wanting to unite the Body of Christ. The reference to the Holy Trinity goes back to Arianism which plagued the East and almost eradicated the Faith.

Since it seems that you see yourself as a defender of the truth and see me as a foe of your truth perhaps is best to allow to go on your merry-go.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Vonsalza]

Just don’t claim stuff and I won’t have to refute it.

To be frank, you’ve not refuted anything. Your modus operandi is to demur with some sort of ad hominem and then ask a counter question.

That’s not a refutation…

Actually, I was bringing up these points because you claim that the Papacy is what keeps the Catholic Church in disunity.

It’s easy to claim that the West is the foe even and in spite of historical accounts that the West is not the foe but the one instrument that keeps wanting to unite the Body of Christ. The reference to the Holy Trinity goes back to Arianism which plagued the East and almost eradicated the Faith.

Not at all. Arianism sprung up because the Church had no official doctrine proclaiming the eternal past of Christ. Frankly, it’s appears to be a somewhat natural and rational reaction as I started off as “Arian” when I was a kid - The idea that Christ existed before his birth was something that surprised me.

But to your point, it didn’t “almost eradicate the faith” as the ecumenical councils that addressed it did so consistently - in condemnation. Someone had to be voting against it…

Also it wasn’t an “eastern heresy” as the Gothic kingdoms (Italy and Spain) advocated it. The Arian frescoes in Ravenna are some beautiful proofs of this reality.

Since it seems that you see yourself as a defender of the truth…

It seems “educator” is more descriptive of the role I’m fulfilling, to be frank.

But the Orthodox view has some pretty great legs, as I hope you’re seeing. I think the very, very best a well-educated Catholic can do is fight it to a draw. I understand if many find this reality irritating.

 

[benjamin1973]

This is a point I don’t get.

I’d assume EVERYTHING, like 100%, is God’s will.

It’s not like God is perfect only with a special role on, and imperfect elsewise, is it?

 

[jcrichton]

Not at all. Arianism sprung up because the Church had no official doctrine proclaiming the eternal past of Christ. Frankly, it’s appears to be a somewhat natural and rational reaction as I started off as “Arian” when I was a kid - The idea that Christ existed before his birth something that surprised me.

You keep missing/ignoring the fact:

**Constantius used his power to exile bishops adhering to the Nicene creed, especially St Athanasius of Alexandria, who fled to Rome. In 355 Constantius became the sole Emperor and extended his pro-Arian policy toward the western provinces, frequently using force to push through his creed, even exiling Pope Liberius and installing Antipope Felix II. ([Arianism - Wikipedia]
(Arianism - Wikipedia))

The East embraced it; as you’ve pointed out in your personal trek, they refused to accept Apostolic Teaching that spells out that Christ is God:

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God… 3 All things were made by him: and without him was made nothing that was made. 4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men… 10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not… 14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we saw his glory, the glory as it were of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. (St. John 1)

The Word that Existed from the Beginning is God!

Maran atha!

Angel