Papal Infallibility - Making me sad, and it's bigger implication

[ArmyMatt]

Ok I clarified it. I corrected the grammar. Yup, I’m getting tired. It’s late in this part of the world.

well, I have heard claims of it, I just wanna know specific examples.

 

[DraculKain]

So I have come to the point that I don't think I can bend my knee to Papal Infallibility without going against my own heart and mind. It's making me sad, as it means I can't be part of the Catholic Church I have been part of. Very sad inside, like heart breaking. I don't know how to reconcile my heart and the RCC.

To me, it's so historically easy to disprove, as Cardinal Newman also noted when it was proposed. I won't go into the arguments, but none of them work without a predisposed opinion to make them work. Simple exegesis does not come to this conclusion.

But now there is a bigger hurdle in this - it was "infallibly declared" at an infallible council. So this would also prove that Catholic councils are not infallible as they insist as well. Wow - the ball of yarn starts to unwind.

How do some very intelligent, well educated, and seemingly well intentioned people buy into this hook, line, and sinker?

I'm just feeling spiritually depressed and lost. And have lost all trust for the judgement of Catholic clergy through this.

Where would you go from here?

My friend, I’ve been there. I can still clearly remember the day and hour itself when I realized that Rome’s claims were false. There wasn’t even anger but only sadness. It was heartbreaking, and my best advice is to tell you to embrace the heartache. Work through it. Deal with it, otherwise it can fester.

I would also advise you to do what I did. Two weeks later, with great fear and trepidation, I walked into an Orthodox Church for the first time. I followed the advice of a Roman Catholic priest who mentored me when he said “When it comes to the true faith there are really only three choices: Judaism, Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy. If Rome proved false I would be Orthodox.”

I was chrismated this past December.

 

[Lost4words]

My friend, I’ve been there. I can still clearly remember the day and hour itself when I realized that Rome’s claims were false. There wasn’t even anger but only sadness. It was heartbreaking, and my best advice is to tell you to embrace the heartache. Work through it. Deal with it, otherwise it can fester.

I would also advise you to do what I did. Two weeks later, with great fear and trepidation, I walked into an Orthodox Church for the first time. I followed the advice of a Roman Catholic priest who mentored me when he said “When it comes to the true faith there are really only three choices: Judaism, Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy. If Rome proved false I would be Orthodox.”

I was chrismated this past December.

Its a shame that you fell into the usual trap of believing in untruths and disinformation and lack of understanding and knowledge of Catholicism.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Its a shame that you fell into the usual trap of believing in untruths and disinformation and lack of understanding and knowledge of Catholicism.

what untruths and disinformation?

 

[Lost4words]

what untruths and disinformation?

As an Orthodox you are bound to say that

 

[ArmyMatt]

As an Orthodox you are bound to say that

yeah...so which ones?

 

[Lost4words]

yeah...so which ones?

Any Catholic truths that you disagree with

 

[ArmyMatt]

Any Catholic truths that you disagree with

yeah, but the ones that we disagree with Rome also used to disagree with.

 

[Lost4words]

yeah, but the ones that we disagree with Rome also used to disagree with.

But obviously, as you know, Rome is right and you are wrong!

 

[ArmyMatt]

But obviously, as you know, Rome is right and you are wrong!

nah, inconsistent theology is not a good sign one is correct. if it was, Rome might have a case.

 

[Lost4words]

nah, inconsistent theology is not a good sign one is correct. if it was, Rome might have a case.

Of course, thats your view my friend.

God bless you

 

[ArmyMatt]

Of course, thats your view my friend.

God bless you

of course it is, you don't really need to look far. just look at the OP. when was papal infallibility ever used in the early centuries?

 

[DraculKain]

of course it is, you don't really need to look far. just look at the OP. when was papal infallibility ever used in the early centuries?

Eh, with Roman Catholicism deflection of copypasta of selected Saints’ words out of context is the best one can get. I can’t say I blame them. It’s a hard time to have faith in Roman Catholicism’s claims about itself, especially when so much of ancient Christian history can be found easily online. Many are just trying to hold onto whatever faith they have.

 

[Markie Boy]

Bishop Gasser, who was Council Father of the First Vatican Council, clarified in his Official Relatio that there were more than two cases of the Roman Pontiffs exercising the gift of infallibility.

“Already thousands and thousands of dogmatic judgements have gone forth from the Apostolic See;” [no. 30, Official Relatio].

Really - how come nobody can agree on a list of them? At least a list with more than two?

 

[prodromos]

Thanks for the article.

I guess if one holds to the strict stipulations it may be more palatable. In which case there are only two infallible decrees. But if that's the case, why wasn't it used for the first 1800 years of Church history?

Reminds me of the servant who was given one Talent in the parable of the Talents, and rather than invest it he buried it in the ground. Didn't end well for him.

 

[trulytheone]

well, I have heard claims of it, I just wanna know specific examples.

One example is already mentioned here: Pope Boniface VIII’s Unam Sanctam, which is merely the logical conclusion of Pope Gelasius’s teaching on the two “swords”, the spiritual and the secular, and our belief on the uniqueness of the Bishop of Rome.

Another example is Pope St. Pius V’s Condemnation of Baius’s ideas (I forget the title). There are many more examples in the Sources of Catholic Dogma by Denzinger.

 

[trulytheone]

Really - how come nobody can agree on a list of them? At least a list with more than two?

Well, the thing is, Catholics are bound to believe not only those things that are declared infallible, but also all the other teachings of the Popes and their Catholic bishops. Contrary to what some of my fellow Trads think, we are bound to accept all the teachings of the popes and obey all their commands as long as they are physically and morally possible to do.

I read about how some Trads criticized Benedict XVI when he changed the Latin Mass’s Holy Week prayer for the Jews despite the fact that the new prayer was still undoubtedly Catholic and provocative to the unbelieving Jews’ ears. If it’s truly the case that Benedict XVI was pope, then what those Trads did were acts of schism because popes have the Divine right to impose new practices on all the liturgies of the Catholic Church.

 

[ArmyMatt]

One example is already mentioned here: Pope Boniface VIII’s Unam Sanctam, which is merely the logical conclusion of Pope Gelasius’s teaching on the two “swords”, the spiritual and the secular, and our belief on the uniqueness of the Bishop of Rome.

Another example is Pope St. Pius V’s Condemnation of Baius’s ideas (I forget the title). There are many more examples in the Sources of Catholic Dogma by Denzinger.

since you are discussing with Orthodox, you should choose Popes prior to the Schism to make your claim.

 

[Markie Boy]

Well, the thing is, Catholics are bound to believe not only those things that are declared infallible, but also all the other teachings of the Popes and their Catholic bishops. Contrary to what some of my fellow Trads think, we are bound to accept all the teachings of the popes and obey all their commands as long as they are physically and morally possible to do.

I read about how some Trads criticized Benedict XVI when he changed the Latin Mass’s Holy Week prayer for the Jews despite the fact that the new prayer was still undoubtedly Catholic and provocative to the unbelieving Jews’ ears. If it’s truly the case that Benedict XVI was pope, then what those Trads did were acts of schism because popes have the Divine right to impose new practices on all the liturgies of the Catholic Church.

So you are bound to believe things like Pope Francis' - who am I to judge? position, or "God wills the plurality of all religions."

Those were public declarations of his position on things.

I'll go back to my old Baptist church first - at least they got the Ten Commandments right.

 

[Markie Boy]

I just re-read the above posts and saw two different Roman positions on salvation.

Boniface VIII Unam Sanctam - Every human creature must be subject to the Roman pontiff for salvation.

Pope Francis signs Abu Dhabi statement - "The pluralism and the diversity of religions, color, sex, race and language are willed by God in his wisdom, through which he created human beings,"

Bishop Barron interview with Ben Shapiro - I mean Christ is the privileged route to salvation…that is the privileged route….However, Vatican II clearly teaches that someone outside the explicitly Christian faith can be saved

Why would I be confused about what Catholicism teaches????????? And how on God's green earth can Catholics say protestants teach all kinds of different stuff.