(Catholics only) How long should I keep fighting what seems a lost war?

[Mark_Sam]

Conciliarism hasn't worked in the past, and the Firth Ecumenical Council of the Lateran (1517), in its 11 session, reaffirmed the authority of the pope over councils: "For it is clearly established that only the contemporary Roman pontiff, as holding authority over all councils, has the full right and power to summon, transfer and dissolve councils. This we know not only from the witness of holy scripture, the statements of holy fathers and our predecessors as Roman pontiffs, and the decisions of the sacred canons, but also from the declarations of the same councils."

Conciliarism is basically the Eastern Orthodox model (although calling it "Conciliarism" might be unfair, since that's a Catholic phenomenon). But even then they don't agree on which Councils are authoritative, and convoking a new Council has proven impossible.

The role and the infallibility of the pope, and whether and to what extent a pope could be a heretic, has been discussed by the great minds of St. Bellarmine and Francisco Suarez, among others. Vatican I is the epitome of that debate. But maybe that's a debate worth bringing back. We all need to take a good look in the mirror, then a good look at Tradition, and reevaluate our view of the office of the papacy. But that doesn't have to entail leaving the Roman Church Catholic.

 

[Markie Boy]

Conciliarism hasn't worked in the past, and the Firth Ecumenical Council of the Lateran (1517), in its 11 session, reaffirmed the authority of the pope over councils: "For it is clearly established that only the contemporary Roman pontiff, as holding authority over all councils, has the full right and power to summon, transfer and dissolve councils. This we know not only from the witness of holy scripture, the statements of holy fathers and our predecessors as Roman pontiffs, and the decisions of the sacred canons, but also from the declarations of the same councils."

Conciliarism is basically the Eastern Orthodox model (although calling it "Conciliarism" might be unfair, since that's a Catholic phenomenon). But even then they don't agree on which Councils are authoritative, and convoking a new Council has proven impossible.

The role and the infallibility of the pope, and whether and to what extent a pope could be a heretic, has been discussed by the great minds of St. Bellarmine and Francisco Suarez, among others. Vatican I is the epitome of that debate. But maybe that's a debate worth bringing back. We all need to take a good look in the mirror, then a good look at Tradition, and reevaluate our view of the office of the papacy. But that doesn't have to entail leaving the Roman Church Catholic.

I don't want to leave - but a good look in the mirror and a good look back at tradition is something I'd love to see done.

Our problem is many of the clergy don't seem to care what they see when they look in the mirror.

But if it could be done honestly, it would be a wonderful thing.

 

[Mark_Sam]

I don't want to leave - but a good look in the mirror and a good look back at tradition is something I'd love to see done.

Our problem is many of the clergy don't seem to care what they see when they look in the mirror.

But if it could be done honestly, it would be a wonderful thing.

The Second Ecumenical Council of the Vatican could have been - and should have been - excactly that. But alas! Maybe a future Vatican III (or Trent II), led by a future pope Pius XIII could get the Church back on track. But we can only hope and dream ...

 

[Markie Boy]

I have read of dialog between East and West on papal infallibility, and how it could be stated so it's palatable on both sides.

In the end, first among equals worked for centuries. It seems pride keeps the RCC from saying it was wrong. It's painted itself in a corner by defining too many things "infallibly". They can be so plainly wrong, but can't say so.

I have a Catholic relative that lives and works in Jerusalem, working for unity. When I asked them about this, they said yes - at times the Church was simply wrong. One of the holiest people I know, and working in the trenches more than we can ever imagine.

 

[Beloved2018]

Going back to scripture leads us the y50 and the council of Jerusalem.
St. Paul's corrected the growing heresy of St. Peter.
Nowhere did Peter say; "hey, listen up I'm infallible. Submit to me!".
No the humble Saint stood corrected.

Saint Peter was acting in a manner unbefitting of his office (and he knew it). He was not officially teaching doctrine (heresy or otherwise).

 

[Beloved2018]

Leading the word, speaking on the behalf of the catholic church , but possibly subject of an council.
If the council ruled and issued anathema then he should be considered anathema.

As long as in agreement with the council of bishops he should be treated with great reverence and dignity.

How could he speak on behalf of the Church unless there is some real authority to back up those proclamations?

 

[Beloved2018]

I don't want to leave - but a good look in the mirror and a good look back at tradition is something I'd love to see done.

Our problem is many of the clergy don't seem to care what they see when they look in the mirror.

But if it could be done honestly, it would be a wonderful thing.

Aren't we in danger of Donatism here? We all want our priests to be holy...but if we leave because they are not...what does that say for our theology? What does that say for how strongly we believe in Christ's atonement?

 

[Beloved2018]

I have read of dialog between East and West on papal infallibility, and how it could be stated so it's palatable on both sides.

In the end, first among equals worked for centuries. It seems pride keeps the RCC from saying it was wrong. It's painted itself in a corner by defining too many things "infallibly". They can be so plainly wrong, but can't say so.

I have a Catholic relative that lives and works in Jerusalem, working for unity. When I asked them about this, they said yes - at times the Church was simply wrong. One of the holiest people I know, and working in the trenches more than we can ever imagine.

Plainly wrong?

 

[Mark_Sam]

The Church is infallible. But the devil is in the details. The popes, the clergy and the laity (all who make up the Church) can certainly be wrong about facts, or even truths concerning faith or morals. But when the Church qua Church exercises her Magisterium (acting as teacher to the faithful), then in some specific circumstances, she will teach infallibly (i.e. without the possibility of being wrong). This is a promise given to the Church by Christ himself, through the Holy Spirit. It gets real confusing real fast - ironically enough. And remember that a doctrine can still be true even if it's not taught infallibly. And as doctrines develop and greater clarity is reached, their position in the hierarchy of doctrines can change. The point is not that "the Church is never wrong", but that when the Church teaches something concerning faith and morals, we can trust in God that it isn't wrong.

 

[Markie Boy]

So I was able to listen to a few talks today. One from a Traditional site, mentioned today's Novus Ordo Church is more full of heresy than Luther. The other is a talk by Taylor Marshall and Timothy Gordon on Francis' recent stamen of "God willed all religions".

As they pick thru points you see, typical Church teaching these days is actually full of half truths and teaching so poor it could endanger one's soul.

 

[Beloved2018]

So I was able to listen to a few talks today. One from a Traditional site, mentioned today's Novus Ordo Church is more full of heresy than Luther. The other is a talk by Taylor Marshall and Timothy Gordon on Francis' recent stamen of "God willed all religions".

As they pick thru points you see, typical Church teaching these days is actually full of half truths and teaching so poor it could endanger one's soul.

List examples please.

 

[Stabat Mater dolorosa]

Requesting thread closed.

 

[Davidnic]

Thread closed at OP request. If people want to discuss issues arising from the conversation please make a new thread.