Problems with Infallibility

[LivingWordUnity]

Pope Boniface VIII more or less had a monopoly on Christianity at the time. The exceptions of that time prove the rule. I don't think it likely that "alternative communions" struck Pope Boniface VIII as even a possibility.

The modern Church exists in a world where Protestantism has been arguably the principal religious influence on western civilization for about two centuries and thus simply acknowledges that salvation may be extended to non-Catholics in some circumstances... and if it does, they will be grafted onto the Church. If they weren't Catholic in life, most assuredly they will be Catholic in eternity.

I don't see a dichotomy between Pope Boniface VIII and the modern Church's teachings on this subject.

Good point. Unam Sanctam and Vatican II both invoke the authority of binding and loosing with the difference being that Pope Boniface VIII was speaking only about the objective reality of the Pope's authority whereas VII takes into account conditions in the world which did not exist during the time of Unam Sanctam, especially the generations of Christians in the West who were raised Protestant and the possibility that some of them may innocently not know that they should be in the Catholic Church.

 

[DoubleZero]

We are saved by the Grace of God, through faith in Christ Jesus. No one has said anything differently. And this is not the place to start such a debate. If you wish for us to clarify the position of the Roman Catholic Church, then ask.

I know the position of the RCC, that is why I can state it, clearly.

 

[DoubleZero]

I am sorry if my posts were confusing
in no way did I mean to limit the Church to just the Latin Rite
I have a deep and abiding love and respect for the Eastern Catholic Churches, which have an ancient and illustrious pedigree and deep theological and liturgical traditions

we have been blessed with so many great saints from the Eastern Churches, like St. John Chrysostom, St. Ignatius of Antioch and so many others

it is possible for people to not be in formal union with the Church, because of no fault of their own they do not know that the Catholic Church is the one true Church.
If they do know this, and still remain separated from the Church, then they can not be saved as clearly stated here
"Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it"


you and I can not judge the soul of the individual, that is for God
so we can not say that they are guilty of disunity
but we can also not say that they are innocent either
it is for God to judge

If you are in Union with Christ, you are in Union with His Church, however, you can be in union with a church and not be in union with Christ.

 

[Rhamiel]

If you are in Union with Christ, you are in Union with His Church, however, you can be in union with a church and not be in union with Christ.

that seems like a reasonable way to put it

 

[Michie]

Yes but let's be clear. This happens in all Churches. It is not just an RCC problem which I get the feeling is what is being inferred.

that seems like a reasonable way to put it

 

[mark46]

I know the position of the RCC, that is why I can state it, clearly.

Please do

 

[WarriorAngel]

This is really getting to me. From my study of Catholic history, and the contemporary Catholic Church, it seems that the notion of Papal Infallibility cannot possibly be true. Correct me if my reasoning is fallacious. Let me elaborate my point here.

Many prior popes have authoritatively declared things to be true and have anathematized those who rejected these teachings. Take for example the Papal Bull "Unam Sanctum". In here the Pope proclaimed that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that all human beings be subject to the Roman Pontiff. No wiggle room here. And yet, the modern CCC acknowledges precisely the opposite; that it IS possible for those not subject to the Pope to be saved.

Or what about the old Papal pronouncements about the primacy and authority of the Pope over all secular rulers? Obviously the church doesn't hold to that anymore.

This is my problem. How can the doctrine of Papal Infallibility be true, when we have totally abrogated doctrines authoritatively and explicitly taught, and even with the included anathemas, by historic Popes? And what about those few Popes who were declared heretics by recognized ecumenical councils? How can Papal Infallibility possibly stand in light of that?!

I really do love the Catholic Church, I love the sacraments, I feel at home here...but this doctrine of Papal Infallibility is just utterly unacceptable to me on grounds of both reason and morality. I won't outright teach against it or reject it, but I cannot bring myself to accept it either. I find myself constantly wishing Vatican 1 never happened.

1) The Church is infallible
2) The teacher of the church thus teaches infallibly.

Not to be confused with sinlessness or scrupulosity.

 

[High Fidelity]

Mod

The thread has been cleaned up.

Please remember that if you are not a member of the denomination of the forum you're posting in then you can only post in fellowship and not debate or post contrary to the core beliefs of that denomination.

Mod​

 

[sylverpiano]

Interesting.......

 

[Root of Jesse]

No Salvation Outside The Church is still a doctrine of the Catholic Church

Right. The key to this is what did the Pope mean by "Church". Christ only instituted one Church. All baptized Christians (Trinitarian formula) are part of the Church, and the Pope is the head of the Church on Earth. Whether or not Reformers want to acknowledge their participation in the Church or not, or submit to the Pope or not, is a different matter.

part of this is the difference between Doctrine and Dogma
while all doctrine is true, there are different interpretations of the same teaching

the Church has always understood that some sins have mitigating circumstances that reduce culpability

it does not hold that teaching anymore? oh
have we officially dropped this teaching or have we just decided not to emphasize that teaching at the time

It's not so much that the Church has dropped the teaching as that the rulers have become more secular. But even the worst of them visit and confer with the Pope.

they may have been heretics, but they never authoritatively supported heresy
like, even a sermon by the Pope would not count as an infallible statement

Also, those heresies were not declared at the time. Posthumous declarations of heretic don't affect their teaching authority.
Even the bad popes, and there were many, didn't teach against Catholic teaching authoritatively and definitively.