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

[trulytheone]

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.

Well, considering that this whole thread was started because of papal infallibility and the OP having problems with it, what’s highlighted here is false. And I have to say this again: we Catholics argue among ourselves about the latter two cases I have posted above. Yes, I already admit that papal infallibility doesn’t always solve epistemological problems Catholics encounter. So what? Papal infallibility itself is a doctrine of the Catholic Church that was declared to be definitive partially in order to close the centuries-old debate as to who were the final authorities, the bishops of Rome or the majority of Catholic bishops around the world. This was done in an ecumenical council so that the French bishops would be proven wrong.

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.

I admit, the doctrine of the Virgin birth is a bad example for what I am trying to point out. All I’m saying is that there are doctrines that fall under the first case that are usually known certainly by the laity. A better example is the doctrine that the Pope is the head of the Catholic Church on Earth.

 

[dzheremi]

Well, considering that this whole thread was started because of papal infallibility and the OP having problems with it, what’s highlighted here is false

The OP is a Catholic struggling with this idea. Of course a Catholic would care about this, since it's what they're being told they need to believe.

When I say nobody else cares about this, I am talking about the Eastern Orthodox whose board this is.

And I have to say this again: we Catholics argue among ourselves about the latter two cases I have posted above. Yes, I already admit that papal infallibility doesn’t always solve epistemological problems Catholics encounter. So what?

So it's useless.

Papal infallibility itself is a doctrine of the Catholic Church that was declared to be definitive partially in order to close the centuries-old debate as to who were the final authorities, the bishops of Rome or the majority of Catholic bishops around the world. This was done in an ecumenical council so that the French bishops would be proven wrong.

As you put it, so what? Who cares how the RCC came to this idea when the idea itself is wrong. This reminds me of the equally lame RC apologetic concerning the filioque clause, that it was necessary to fight Arianism in 6th century Spain. Okay, then, but it's not like the rest of the churches of the world hadn't already dealt with the Arians without messing with the Creed, so it seems like special pleading on the RC apologists' part, like "Oh, well we needed this to solve a problem we were having, so it's okay", as though begetting one heresy in the name of guarding against another is somehow justifiable because these people over here were wrong. Alright. So now you're both wrong, but in different ways. Congratulations.

I admit, the doctrine of the Virgin birth is a bad example for what I am trying to point out. All I’m saying is that there are doctrines that fall under the first case that are usually known certainly by the laity. A better example is the doctrine that the Pope is the head of the Catholic Church on Earth.

Okay. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[prodromos]

For example, “can a pope fall into public obstinate heresy during his pontificate” is still an open question in the Catholic Church.

It's a closed question for us. We are simply looking at the reality and agreeing with it.

 

[Markie Boy]

On a pope being removed, I find it funny that Catholics argue it can't be done today - because it has been done in the past.

Yes, a Pope can be canonically deposed

 

[trulytheone]

I do apologize to everyone here if I posted something uncharitable on this thread and to other threads of the Eastern Orthodox. While I still believe and assent to all Roman Catholic beliefs, I am not proud of the manner I defended them here.

Pray for me. The quarantine sucks here in the Philippines. And the national government’s incompetency and, plausibly, malicious dishonesty have made many of us disillusioned to many institutions here. I do not even know if I would literally survive the whole pandemic ordeal. In my case, I am already meditating on my communion’s famous teaching on the four last things.

Edit: I need to clarify that I’m not infected. But, the institution here responsible for releasing the numbers is being dishonest about it. This has made me more afraid for my health. And I suspect that I would be infected in the near future.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I don't see anything uncharitable on your part. I just see disagreement, which is fine here.

 

[Jude1:3Contendforthefaith]

Hey guys, could we get back together if The Pope officially took out The Filioque clause ?

He is The Patriarchal Bishop of Rome and the first among equals, so he could make that call couldn't he ?

.

 

[Xenophon]

No. That is one single problem with Rome. Unfortunately, over the years more and more errors were added to the Latins.

The removal of the filioque would only be a start.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Hey guys, could we get back together if The Pope officially took out The Filioque clause ?

He is The Patriarchal Bishop of Rome and the first among equals, so he could make that call couldn't he ?

.

no, Rome has a ton more errors that they would have to condemn or reject.

 

[tz620q]

Bishop Gasser, who was Council Father of the First Vatican Council, clarified in his Official Relatio that there w

Can I ask - what did you see on the Vortex? I recently read some of the book Infiltration by Taylor Marshall. At the end he asks why we just can't admit that what the RCC is now is different that what it used to be - insisting a lack of continuity. And that's from a Catholic source.

Markie Boy, I don't know how to say this without offense; but you seem to have doubts about the Catholic Church and are looking for other doubters to confirm your opinion. Doubt is not an end to anything. At best it can be a temporary transition from one paradigm to another. At worst, it becomes a quicksand that pulls us into a quagmire of doubt and leaves us stranded without firm ground to stand on. I think you probably went through this in the past when you moved from being Baptist to being Catholic. Perhaps when you became Catholic these doubts were there and had not been sufficiently answered. I am sorry that you have not found answers that satisfy you. I can only say that trying to seek perfection this side of the grave is only going to lead to disappointment. The only advice I can give you is seek truth and seek peace. You will know the truth when you find the peace and your doubts are quelled.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Markie Boy, I don't know how to say this without offense; but you seem to have doubts about the Catholic Church and are looking for other doubters to confirm your opinion. Doubt is not an end to anything. At best it can be a temporary transition from one paradigm to another. At worst, it becomes a quicksand that pulls us into a quagmire of doubt and leaves us stranded without firm ground to stand on. I think you probably went through this in the past when you moved from being Baptist to being Catholic. Perhaps when you became Catholic these doubts were there and had not been sufficiently answered. I am sorry that you have not found answers that satisfy you. I can only say that trying to seek perfection this side of the grave is only going to lead to disappointment. The only advice I can give you is seek truth and seek peace. You will know the truth when you find the peace and your doubts are quelled.

we aren't doubters. as Orthodox Christians, we know history (beginning with Scripture) doesn't support many claims Rome makes about herself.

 

[prodromos]

Markie Boy, I don't know how to say this without offense; but you seem to have doubts about the Catholic Church and are looking for other doubters to confirm your opinion. Doubt is not an end to anything. At best it can be a temporary transition from one paradigm to another. At worst, it becomes a quicksand that pulls us into a quagmire of doubt and leaves us stranded without firm ground to stand on. I think you probably went through this in the past when you moved from being Baptist to being Catholic. Perhaps when you became Catholic these doubts were there and had not been sufficiently answered. I am sorry that you have not found answers that satisfy you. I can only say that trying to seek perfection this side of the grave is only going to lead to disappointment. The only advice I can give you is seek truth and seek peace. You will know the truth when you find the peace and your doubts are quelled.

I can understand you missing Markie's post in OBOB, but he has chosen to remain Catholic.
Why I'm staying Catholic......thank you everyone!

 

[tz620q]

we aren't doubters. as Orthodox Christians, we know history (beginning with Scripture) doesn't support many claims Rome makes about herself.

Sorry if I inferred that, Father. That was not my intent. When I post here, I know that I will be talking with people who are firm in their beliefs and not afraid to state them and back them up. I tried to convey that doubt is not a bad thing in itself. Just as Thomas doubted until he had encountered the Risen Christ, his conviction seems stronger because of his doubt. The enemy is the author of that doubt that wants to keep us in this turbulent state where peace and surety seems unattainable. I, truthfully, was just praying that Markie Boy could move past this state and rest in Christ in either the Orthodox or Catholic Church. Peace be with you.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Sorry if I inferred that, Father. That was not my intent. When I post here, I know that I will be talking with people who are firm in their beliefs and not afraid to state them and back them up. I tried to convey that doubt is not a bad thing in itself. Just as Thomas doubted until he had encountered the Risen Christ, his conviction seems stronger because of his doubt. The enemy is the author of that doubt that wants to keep us in this turbulent state where peace and surety seems unattainable. I, truthfully, was just praying that Markie Boy could move past this state and rest in Christ in either the Orthodox or Catholic Church. Peace be with you.

ah, gotcha. no worries then and you're right.

 

[Justin-H.S.]

I saw/listened to a homily this morning in which the subject matter led to the part in the Gospel where Lord asks the disciples who they say He is, which of course St. Peter comes to proclaim that He is the Lord, the Son of God, and we know the response from Lord: "You are Peter and on this Rock I will build my Church."

Well, the priest says to not get stuck in the world of literalism, and this goes for the Antiochians, too because they often retort to the Roman Catholics with "Well, Ss Peter and Paul were both our bishops first! " Both the Romans and Antiochians are reading the Lord literally, when throughout the whole Gospel, the disciples also took the Lord literally, and kept getting rebuked for it because they (the disciples) couldn't grasp the Lord's spiritual meaning.

He (the priest giving the homily) went on to say that the "Rock" which the Lord is talking about is St. Peter's answer to the Lord's question: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." <--- That statement is the Rock which the Lord builds His Church on. Not literally Peter, the person. (Because if you remember, each disciple gave an answer to His question, but Peter's was the most accurate answer.) Also, St Peter wasn't called "Peter" until he gave his answer to the Lord's question, so it's easy to conclude that he was called "Peter" because of his statement of faith, and not because of his personhood. We come to read later on that Peter is anything BUT a Rock, because he like the rest of us waivered in the face of danger. His statement of faith is the Rock. It's plausible that if it was St. Andrew who gave the correct answer, then St. Andrew would be the one called "Peter" and not Simon. The focus is on the wrong Person.

If the Lord were building His Church on Peter, the person, well He goes on to call Peter, the person, "Satan" a few verses later for trying to prevent the Logos from doing God's Will.

Logically, if we were to determine His Words literally, He built His Church on Peter, the person, but then later called this person "Satan," so do we really want to claim He built a Church on Satan?

 

[ArmyMatt]

I saw/listened to a homily this morning in which the subject matter led to the part in the Gospel where Lord asks the disciples who they say He is, which of course St. Peter comes to proclaim that He is the Lord, the Son of God, and we know the response from Lord: "You are Peter and on this Rock I will build my Church."

Well, the priest says to not get stuck in the world of literalism, and this goes for the Antiochians, too because they often retort to the Roman Catholics with "Well, Ss Peter and Paul were both our bishops first! " Both the Romans and Antiochians are reading the Lord literally, when throughout the whole Gospel, the disciples also took the Lord literally, and kept getting rebuked for it because they (the disciples) couldn't grasp the Lord's spiritual meaning.

He (the priest giving the homily) went on to say that the "Rock" which the Lord is talking about is St. Peter's answer to the Lord's question: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." <--- That statement is the Rock which the Lord builds His Church on. Not literally Peter, the person. (Because if you remember, each disciple gave an answer to His question, but Peter's was the most accurate answer.) Also, St Peter wasn't called "Peter" until he gave his answer to the Lord's question, so it's easy to conclude that he was called "Peter" because of his statement of faith, and not because of his personhood. We come to read later on that Peter is anything BUT a Rock, because he like the rest of us waivered in the face of danger. His statement of faith is the Rock. It's plausible that if it was St. Andrew who gave the correct answer, then St. Andrew would be the one called "Peter" and not Simon. The focus is on the wrong Person.

If the Lord were building His Church on Peter, the person, well He goes on to call Peter, the person, "Satan" a few verses later for trying to prevent the Logos from doing God's Will.

Logically, if we were to determine His Words literally, He built His Church on Peter, the person, but then later called this person "Satan," so do we really want to claim He built a Church on Satan?

it is correct that St Peter founded Antioch first, but that point is usually made to undermine Rome's false claims about herself, not to elevate Antioch.

 

[Justin-H.S.]

it is correct that St Peter founded Antioch first, but that point is usually made to undermine Rome's false claims about herself, not to elevate Antioch.

Right. I guess my point was that the argument that St. Peter was the first pope therefore: ROME, is kind of a....dumb argument.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Right. I guess my point was that the argument that St. Peter was the first pope therefore: ROME, is kind of a....dumb argument.

exactly, it's a weak argument

 

[East of Eden]

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?

Good question. As CS Lewis said, I could never become a Catholic, there are too many new doctrines.

 

[East of Eden]

Catholicism, in my experience, always obfuscated what is plainly observable with contrived intellectual excuses - reason out of it's proper place.

The method in short;

Take a category and divide it into subcategories.
Take a subcategory and disproportionately emphasis it.
'Black out' the other subcategories in order to distort the whole.
Set the subcategory as the determinator of the category, thus inverting the roles of the category and the subcategory.


This also happens to be a basic propaganda method, you can see it in the news all the time. But it appears to the means of 'development' in Catholicism. Good example is the recent change in the catechism about the death penalty.

Opposition to the death penalty is completely against God's commands in the Old Testament. Mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent.

In this way the teachings of the Chirch can be compromised to any political end without directly contradicting any teaching.