St. Leo the Great was a Papist?

[dóxatotheó]

that St Leo isn’t a papist even by what you have quoted.

I dont see how man this had me confused for weeks because it's a very compelling argument.

 

[dóxatotheó]

again, not exactly. it’s more precise than that

explain

 

[ArmyMatt]

I dont see how man this had me confused for weeks because it's a very compelling argument.

you’re concluding things from St Leo that he doesn’t actually say

 

[ArmyMatt]

explain

read what Vatican I says about infallibility

 

[dóxatotheó]

read what Vatican I says about infallibility

I have

 

[dóxatotheó]

you’re concluding things from St Leo that he doesn’t actually say

What does he say exactly???

 

[ArmyMatt]

What does he say exactly???

nothing near being a Vatican I papal understanding

 

[ArmyMatt]

I have

then you should have realized what Pope John Paul didn’t do to make the statement infallible.

 

[dóxatotheó]

then you should have realized what Pope John Paul didn’t do to make the statement infallible.

“We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, irreformable. So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema." very much infallible.

 

[dóxatotheó]

nothing near being a Vatican I papal understanding

the quotes I shown leads to that conclusion

 

[ArmyMatt]

“We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, irreformable. So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema." very much infallible.

yes, but there’s something in that statement JPII didn’t do

 

[ArmyMatt]

the quotes I shown leads to that conclusion

no it doesn’t. your quotes from St Leo are missing some key stuff which you actually just quoted above.

 

[dóxatotheó]

no it doesn’t. your quotes from St Leo are missing some key stuff which you actually just quoted above.

Interesting I may see good discussion I will bring back this discussion in the future God bless, My first time discussing with a priest outside my church its so amazing God bless thanks for your time.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Interesting I may see good discussion I will bring back this discussion in the future God bless, My first time discussing with a priest outside my church its so amazing God bless thanks for your time.

yep, good discussion!

 

[Not David]

I would be careful about referring to an Orthodox Saint as Papist though

 

[dzheremi]

Well, at least it's in the right section of the forum for once!

 

[dóxatotheó]

I would be careful about referring to an Orthodox Saint as Papist though

It was a discussion request @ArmyMatt answered my Questions.