- Sep 29, 2016
- 1,507
- 822
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Republican
Sing prayers together with infidels, heretics, and pagans?do what?
Go to 19:00 to 19:55
Upvote
0
Sing prayers together with infidels, heretics, and pagans?do what?
Personally, I do not think the Orthodox hierarchs or the Pope are guilty of anything. Obviously the non Christians probably just think everyone is just trying to be nice.
I just think the Orthodox & other Christian clerics lack wisdom and are usually poor leaders.
...not even sure where to start with this one...
If you set the Pope as the ultimate Epistemological standard (that is, THE ultimate standard by which true doctrine is known and explained), even above the authority of Ecumenical Councils, you cannot say when he says something you don't like "Oh, he's not a real Pope" based on a standard outside of the Pope, through a redefinition of your initial premises
It follows the logic, therefore, of the No True Scotsman fallacy.
"All True Scotsmen drink Whiskey."
"Mel Gibson is a Scotsman who doesn't drink Whiskey."
"Then he isn't a true Scotsman."
A man loses the papacy when he becomes a public heretic. Nothing confusing about this. A man also loses his salvation when he commits apostasy. It's not "No True Scotsman." Keep tryin'.
Strawman.
A man loses the papacy when he becomes a public heretic. Nothing confusing about this. A man also loses his salvation when he commits apostasy. It's not "No True Scotsman." Keep tryin'.
Sing prayers together with infidels, heretics, and pagans?
Go to 19:00 to 19:55
A Bishop doesn't lose his Bishophood when he becomes a public heretic, according to the paradigm of Sacramental theology within Roman Catholicism. The fact that there is a recognition of the validity of Sacraments in the Eastern Churches (Ancient Churches of the East, Oriental Orthodox, and Eastern Orthodox) is a testament to this, because traditionally speaking, all of these Churches were viewed as heretical by Rome.
that's a different question than what he initially asked.
I don't think the two positions are mutually incompatible. One can be a poor leader and be a horrible sinner. If one is a horrible sinner, they often are nothing but a poor leader, especially for those around them.
Judas was a poor leader who would often steal money from the donations to the poor. His sin of greed led him to be one of the most notorious human beings in history.
Eutyches was a poor leader who honestly seemed really confused about what he was preaching. Doesn't mean he wasn't guilty of what he preached, for even after admonitions at a Synodal level from both the Chalcedonians and non-Chalcedonians, he stayed an obstinate heretic to his death, and brought many a soul away from communion with the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church to a heresy that logically implied that God wasn't actually God, or that God doesn't even exist as traditionally understood.
Okay, well, is it okay to sing prayers alongside heretics, pagans, and infidels?
So why would a Pope - a Bishop - lose the papacy when he becomes a public heretic?
No, it isn't. Read the texts of Vatican I; the Pope is the source of irreformable judgments on matters of doctrines and morals when speaking Ex Cathedra.
If they are speaking ex cathedra, your Church teaches that that is a theoretical impossibilitySorry, but your approach is facile. What do you suppose happens when two Popes theoretically contradict one another?
After so many of these types of encounters, at what point does that stop being a defense...they must be getting this 'uninformation' from somewhere, right?
Maybe not owed, but given as a matter of ecclesiological principle (again, following Vatican I's declaration that it is unlawful to appeal to a synod as though they are a source higher than the Roman Pontiff and similar statements that place him above the entire church).
This is likewise not talking about forcible deposition, is it? I thought I was clear that this is what I mean about a lack of oversight. This is simply saying that if the Pope were to publicly manifest heresy in these particular ways, he would (somehow), by virtue of having done so, magically stop being the Pope.
Besides, I'm sure it could be argued by many (not a few Catholics among them) that things like the Assisi events are just such a public manifestation of heresy, and yet Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI were not ipso facto 'unpoped' or whatever. So what does this even do? It's not really effective oversight.
I'm not intending or pretending to solve any Roman's problems. I'm not a member of your church anymore, so the only thing that really compels me to say anything is that I've been there myself and it didn't feel healthy, and I care about the people who are still there that they are not spiritually starved or abused in the name of the institution. I have said as much in the past in more appropriate venues than this regarding some excesses among the leaders of my own Church (e.g., HE Met. Bishoy) who apparently thought their word was law and were reminded afterwards by the holy synod that they need to just be quiet sometimes. This is how it should be when it needs to be.
When did I say that it was? I do believe that one is healthier than the other, but my point is not "my church is better than your church", but rather "your church's way of being robs you of what you deserve, and used to actually have, and that's not something I'm okay with."
I'm sorry, I know I said I'd bow out, but since I'm the one who brought it up in the first place by bringing up how comparatively recently both the EO Church and my own OO Church have actually forcibly deposed errant patriarchs, I have to ask: who judges whether or not this has been met, particularly in an environment when the strictures placed on the judgment of the Pope found in Vatican I are apparently in place? Because my point was that we both (EO and OO) can point to not only who would judge our patriarchs, but who actually has within the living memory.
Meanwhile, you can have events like Assisi which are a public display of heresy and no one faces synodal discipline for it -- certainly not the Pope himself. So it's at very best circular reasoning, because since "a man loses his papacy when he becomes a public heretic", and JPII did not lose his papacy as a result of this, therefore it must not have been heretical.
Well isn't that convenient.
Which Catholic dogma says can't happen. Can you as a Catholic disagree with Catholic dogma?Yes, a theoretical impossibility that would result in the second statement being heretical.
Nothing in Catholic doctrine teaches this.I don't follow.
If a pope tried to declare a heresy infallible, thus contradicting a previous dogma, he would become a public heretic and would no longer be pope.