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

[trulytheone]

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

The Tome of Pope St. Leo. Yes, I am aware that some of the bishops in Chalcedon checked if it's compatible with the teachings of St. Cyril. I will explain later why this did not necessarily disprove Vatican 1. And I did mention the Two-Sword teaching of Pope St. Gelasius.

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.

Francis's statements are so blatantly against the first commandment that one of the most unpopular positions in the Trad community seems to be the correct position to explain this **cough**sede...**cough**.

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

Yup! You hit the nail to one of the symptoms of the recent crisis in our communion.

 

[ArmyMatt]

The Tome of Pope St. Leo. Yes, I am aware that some of the bishops in Chalcedon checked if it's compatible with the teachings of St. Cyril. I will explain later why this did not necessarily disprove Vatican 1. And I did mention the Two-Sword teaching of Pope St. Gelasius.

I'd like to hear them both. you did mention St Gelasius, but it's the interpretation that counts.

and there is more to Chalcedon as being a bad example than that.

 

[dzheremi]

Going back to the mid-3rd century, we have then-Roman Bishop St. Dionysius (d. 268) referring to the reposed HH Pope St. Heraclas of Alexandria (d. 248), the thirteenth bishop to oversee the See of St. Mark, as his Father (or in Greek πάπα, from whence comes the English "Pope"). It is perhaps also enlightening to realize that St. Dionysius calls him this with reference to receiving a rule from him. The successor of HH St. Pope Heraclas, HH St. Dionysius of Alexandria (d. 264), wrote letters to his respective Roman counterparts Popes Stephen and Xystus in the context of the struggle in the Latin-aligned Church in North Africa (i.e., not Egypt) between St. Cyprian of Carthage and various authorities, exhorting them to uphold the true faith. Even later, in 445, a certain Bishop Leo of Rome wrote to the then-universally-recognized sole Pope of Alexandria, HH St. Dioscorus, congratulating him on his elevation and urging him to implement certain Roman practices in the Church of Alexandria that were foreign to it, so that Rome and Alexandria may be "one in all things". That didn't happen. We didn't adopt those practices.

Etc., etc. etc. I'm sure you EO have even more examples of not following whatever the Roman Popes were doing, since you've got ~600 years more of being in communion with Rome to draw on.

To put it bluntly, Papal infallibility is a sham. To the OP: I would not waste even one minute being upset over something that does not exist.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Going back to the mid-3rd century, we have then-Roman Bishop St. Dionysius (d. 268) referring to the reposed HH Pope St. Heraclas of Alexandria (d. 248), the thirteenth bishop to oversee the See of St. Mark, as his Father (or in Greek πάπα, from whence comes the English "Pope"). It is perhaps also enlightening to realize that St. Dionysius calls him this with reference to receiving a rule from him. The successor of HH St. Pope Heraclas, HH St. Dionysius of Alexandria (d. 264), wrote letters to his respective Roman counterparts Popes Stephen and Xystus in the context of the struggle in the Latin-aligned Church in North Africa (i.e., not Egypt) between St. Cyprian of Carthage and various authorities, exhorting them to uphold the true faith. Even later, in 445, a certain Bishop Leo of Rome wrote to the then-universally-recognized sole Pope of Alexandria, HH St. Dioscorus, congratulating him on his elevation and urging him to implement certain Roman practices in the Church of Alexandria that were foreign to it, so that Rome and Alexandria may be "one in all things". That didn't happen. We didn't adopt those practices.

Etc., etc. etc. I'm sure you EO have even more examples of not following whatever the Roman Popes were doing, since you've got ~600 years more of being in communion with Rome to draw on.

To put it bluntly, Papal infallibility is a sham. To the OP: I would not waste even one minute being upset over something that does not exist.

even earlier, St Irenaeus of Lyons told St Victor of Rome to back off and leave the Quartodecimens alone, and he did.

 

[Markie Boy]

There is so much that shows Papal Supremacy or Infallibility did not exists in the first centuries, it's quite insane that the argument even exists. That's my conclusion after reading on it hoping it was true.

And I say this after having read on it with the hopes of proving it true so I could stay Catholic. But it just does not exist except in the minds of those that want it to, and have colored history to their liking, and erased that parts that don't fit.

 

[ArmyMatt]

even after Chalcedon, St Leo wrote to some Palestinian monks who were hesitant about the formula at the council, and basically said that they didn't need to accept his specific language if they didn't like it.

so even for those like myself who agree with the truth of what St Leo said, still gotta admit that St Leo is a very poor case for papal infallibility.

 

[Markie Boy]

With Catholic logic - infallibility seems to have tied so many things together. But if Infallibility is false - and at the same time they demand you assent to it to be Catholic - nobody should assent to false teaching, thus nobody should be Roman Catholic.

Sounds harsh, but it's the only logical path I can see.

When I talk to most Catholics, they just ignore the concept anyway - but if everyone was actually pushed to learn about it and then assent to it - what happens?

 

[Xenophon]

The problem with Roman Catholicism is that it is a cult which places a single man at the top of an 'information ecology.' Infallibility is a doctrine which necessarily arises to complete that ecology and allow it's bounds to be determined centrally - true and false, fact and fiction, all become arbitrated or curated by a single individual.

This is supposed to solve epistemological issues, but the solvency is an illusion.

 

[trulytheone]

I'd like to hear them both. you did mention St Gelasius, but it's the interpretation that counts.

and there is more to Chalcedon as being a bad example than that.

Internet History Sourcebooks Project

Anyway, the pope told the Roman emperor that he had a duty to revere all the clergy of the Church, especially the bishop of the first see (I am sure we agree on this at least).

 

[trulytheone]

With Catholic logic - infallibility seems to have tied so many things together. But if Infallibility is false - and at the same time they demand you assent to it to be Catholic - nobody should assent to false teaching, thus nobody should be Roman Catholic.

Sounds harsh, but it's the only logical path I can see.

When I talk to most Catholics, they just ignore the concept anyway - but if everyone was actually pushed to learn about it and then assent to it - what happens?

When Pope Pius IX convened The First Vatican Council, its main goal was to tackle the contemporary challenges made by those who adhere to the modern yet erroneous ideas about faith and reason. Along the way, papal infallibility became one of the main subjects in discussion. The council finally decided to declare that the dominant French theory, the idea that the majority of Catholic bishops are infallible even despite the pope‘s decision, was wrong.

Why was a council needed to finally decide on this?

It was so that the French bishops would be caught in a Catch-22 scenario if they were to continue to hold to their own pet-theory on the infallibility of the majority of bishops. Either way, the French bishops lose.

The council also finally decided in favor of the doctrine that the popes have supreme, ordinary, and immediate jurisdiction partially so that the secular princes wouldn’t anymore dare to challenge the pope’s authority to appoint his choice of bishops in their territories, thus putting a nail into the coffin of the infamous investiture controversy of the Middle Ages.

Papal infallibility was never suppose to mean that Catholics must only believe in some of the popes’ teachings. Catholics must submit to all the teachings of the popes. That’s their duty. And contrary to what some Catholics think, laymen can determine if someone is an obstinate heretic even in the clergy. To say otherwise is to actually implicitly hold a condemned error listed in Denzinger (and I am almost certain most of you know what Denzinger is given your previous interactions with other Catholics).

And a public obstinate heretical cleric loses whatever ecclesiastical office he has in the Church, even the papacy itself, because being a public obstinate heretic immediately kicks one out of the Church, as it was taught in the encyclical Mystici Corporis by Pope Pius XII.

And considering that Francis did offer a liturgical abuse in Argentina before his “pontificate” (I believe that this abuse of liturgy was public and obstinately heretical), one should wonder if he truly is the pope.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Internet History Sourcebooks Project

Anyway, the pope told the Roman emperor that he had a duty to revere all the clergy of the Church, especially the bishop of the first see (I am sure we agree on this at least).

yeah, but this has nothing to do with infallibility.

 

[trulytheone]

yeah, but this has nothing to do with infallibility.

Well yes, I never used this to prove St Gelasius taught on infallibility. I merely used this to prove that a first-millennium pope taught definitively on the relation between Church and State.

And because of this, to contradict the teaching of St. Gelasius on Church-State relations is to be a heretic (at least to us Catholics).

 

[ArmyMatt]

Well yes, I never used this to prove St Gelasius taught on infallibility. I merely used this to prove that a first-millennium pope taught definitively on the relation between Church and State.

And because of this, to contradict the teaching of St. Gelasius on Church-State relations is to be a heretic (at least to us Catholics).

that has nothing to do with Chalcedon either. I don't understand why this was brought up.

 

[trulytheone]

This is supposed to solve epistemological issues, but the solvency is an illusion.

This is not necessary. Even after the First Vatican Council, some Catholic writers acknowledged that the doctrine of papal infallibility was not there to solve every epistemological problem (I mean, even pre-V2 theologians disagree on whether some doctrines were finally settled by the popes or not).

 

[trulytheone]

that has nothing to do with Chalcedon either. I don't understand why this was brought up.

I brought it up as an example of papal infallibility being exercised in the first millennium (I mean you did ask for examples of papal infallibility being exercised in the first millennium, so here was one case of a saintly pope definitively teaching a doctrine on Church-State relations).

 

[ArmyMatt]

I brought it up as an example of papal infallibility being exercised in the first millennium (I mean you did ask for examples of papal infallibility being exercised in the first millennium, so here was one case of a saintly pope definitively teaching a doctrine on Church-State relations).

that's not a good example, because we would totally agree with every point in there, and we reject papal infallibility.

that's like when Protestants read a Church Father who says to read the Scriptures, and assumes in there Sola Scriptura.

 

[dzheremi]

This is not necessary. Even after the First Vatican Council, some Catholic writers acknowledged that the doctrine of papal infallibility was not there to solve every epistemological (I mean, even pre-V2 theologians disagree on whether some doctrines were finally settled by the popes or not).

Where do you see the word "every" in the post you're replying to here?

And how useful can it possibly be if your own theologians disagree on whether or not it (or popes invoking it, or however you'd put it) settles doctrinal disputes? I thought that was the entire point -- that when the Pope declares something "ex cathedra", the matter is settled. It seems that all it does in practice is give Catholics reason to argue among themselves when something is "ex cathedra" and when it isn't, so as to preserve a loophole in ecumenical discussions with those who disagree with you (*ahem*) while still pretending that this ecclesiology somehow divinely protects your incredibly wrong church from error. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[Markie Boy]

When Pope Pius IX convened The First Vatican Council, its main goal was to tackle the contemporary challenges made by those who adhere to the modern yet erroneous ideas about faith and reason. Along the way, papal infallibility became one of the main subjects in discussion. The council finally decided to declare that the dominant French theory, the idea that the majority of Catholic bishops are infallible even despite the pope‘s decision, was wrong.

Why was a council needed to finally decide on this?

It was so that the French bishops would be caught in a Catch-22 scenario if they were to continue to hold to their own pet-theory on the infallibility of the majority of bishops. Either way, the French bishops lose.

The council also finally decided in favor of the doctrine that the popes have supreme, ordinary, and immediate jurisdiction partially so that the secular princes wouldn’t anymore dare to challenge the pope’s authority to appoint his choice of bishops in their territories, thus putting a nail into the coffin of the infamous investiture controversy of the Middle Ages.

Papal infallibility was never suppose to mean that Catholics must only believe in some of the popes’ teachings. Catholics must submit to all the teachings of the popes. That’s their duty. And contrary to what some Catholics think, laymen can determine if someone is an obstinate heretic even in the clergy. To say otherwise is to actually implicitly hold a condemned error listed in Denzinger (and I am almost certain most of you know what Denzinger is given your previous interactions with other Catholics).

And a public obstinate heretical cleric loses whatever ecclesiastical office he has in the Church, even the papacy itself, because being a public obstinate heretic immediately kicks one out of the Church, as it was taught in the encyclical Mystici Corporis by Pope Pius XII.

And considering that Francis did offer a liturgical abuse in Argentina before his “pontificate” (I believe that this abuse of liturgy was public and obstinately heretical), one should wonder if he truly is the pope.

Some good points here - better than what I have gotten from almost all the Trad Latin Catholics I have talked to.

I have been reprimanded, saying nobody can judge a pope except another pope. The pope is above all authority. Lay people have no place judging what a pope says or does - all really firm reprimands I have gotten.

Then they pull out all the fancy footwork to cover the current state with Francis. It is literally enough to make me not trust Catholicism. And it has made it near impossible for them to fix their own problem, without undoing their own "infallible dogma", which shows their concept of "infallibility" is false.

To get out of the mud puddle, they have to admit what they did was wrong. From what I see they are not willing to swallow their pride and do so.

 

[trulytheone]

And how useful can it possibly be if your own theologians disagree on whether or not it (or popes invoking it, or however you'd put it) settles doctrinal disputes? I thought that was the entire point -- that when the Pope declares something "ex cathedra", the matter is settled. It seems that all it does in practice is give Catholics reason to argue among themselves when something is "ex cathedra" and when it isn't, so as to preserve a loophole in ecumenical discussions with those who disagree with you (*ahem*) while still pretending that this ecclesiology somehow divinely protects your incredibly wrong church from error.

There are doctrines that are certainly declared definitive, doctrines that are uncertain if they’re declared definitive before, and doctrines that are certainly still open for debate (I know I am not being exhaustive here on the list since it’s been a while since I opened a Catholic theological manual pre-V2). Pre-Vatican 2 theologians debated on open opinions* falling under the latter two cases. The gift of infallibility itself prevents one from definitively settling those questions,* which fall under the third case, in favor of error. And the doctrine of Papal infallibility states that the Bishop of Rome, not the majority of bishops in opposition to him, is the one prevented from definitively settling them in favor of error.

Your post, though, assumes that there are no doctrines falling under the first case. We still have the writings of Council fathers of ecumenical councils on how they interpret the councils themselves, most of the canons of the ecumenical councils themselves, and the writings of most popes and other bishops throughout history. And one does not have to be a theologian to know that not believing in the Virgin birth is heretical anyway.

I have been reprimanded, saying nobody can judge a pope except another pope. The pope is above all authority. Lay people have no place judging what a pope says or does - all really firm reprimands I have gotten.

Then they pull out all the fancy footwork to cover the current state with Francis. It is literally enough to make me not trust Catholicism. And it has made it near impossible for them to fix their own problem, without undoing their own "infallible dogma", which shows their concept of "infallibility" is false.

They used the term “judging” in an equivocal sense. Which is a wrong thing to do. When pre-V2 Catholic theologians speak of the phrase “the First See is judge by no one,” they simply meant that the pope cannot be deposed or removed from the office of the papacy by anyone else except God (through the death of the pope) and the pope himself (through his voluntary resignation or through his public obstinate heresy & apostasy). When we determine that a member of the Church has left the Church through public manifest heresy, we are not judging him. We are simply looking at the reality and agreeing with it.


*These open questions and opinions, though, stem from the teachings of various popes and bishops before. For example, “can a pope fall into public obstinate heresy during his pontificate” is still an open question in the Catholic Church. But this question stems from the already definitively-settled doctrines on Church membership, the nature of episcopal offices (especially the papacy), and others. Ultimately, those open opinions and questions have their sources in the Public Revelation itself, which was closed at the death of St. John the Apostle.

 

[dzheremi]

Your post, though, assumes that there are no doctrines falling under the first case.

No it doesn't. My post states (not assumes) that what happens in reality is that all this Papal Infallibility thing does is give Catholics reason to argue among themselves as to whether or not something was/is "ex cathedra" or not. Nobody else cares about any of this to begin with, since we don't believe in it.

And one does not have to be a theologian to know that not believing in the Virgin birth is heretical anyway.

Who's talking about this? Frankly if you need the Pope to tell you to believe in the virgin birth, then you have much bigger problems than not being able to tell when Papal Infallibility has kicked in, and should probably stop worrying yourself with extraneous things until you get the basics of the Christian religion straight. Yeesh.