Union with Rome. What Would it Take?

[ArmyMatt]

But don't you think some sort of union can be achieved despite not being in full communion?

that would not be union

A sort of "shoulder by shoulder" in subjects where we're better off united than separated such as condemnation of SSM for instance?

which is fine, but we disagree about the meat and potatoes of the faith, so standing for something like SSM is just peripheral, and won't actually heal anything.

So to act like one church in matters where we share a common goal.

and our goal is God's Kingdom, so if we are preaching a different Kingdom, we are preaching a different Christ.

But of course stay very clear that we're in schism and not in full communion, or do you think this will look way to blurry from an outside and in perspective?

I really don't think that would do much aside from give us all good cause to pat ourselves on the back come election day. the issue is that it really doesn't solve the real problem.

Sadly you speak of the truth Matt.
Hopefully this will change as we draw closer to the Orthodox Church (at least it appears like we do).

and that is another issue. the problem I think is that Rome says all this flowery stuff about the East, but does not reject that which divides us in the first place.

 

[MilesVitae]

I think the issue is, again, a lot of what Rome teaches nowadays is not what seems to always be taught. I think the only reason the modern Catholic Church is chummy with the East is because Modern popes are as well. so I know what the Church teaches regarding the ex cathedra stuff. and Pius was not the only one who said that about the Pope.

I suspect the possibility that what you are saying is true regarding the RCC's understanding of or position on some topics (such as, maybe, purgatory and "temporal punishment due to sins," original sin, the Filioque, the Orthodox Churches).
As regards the topic you and I are discussing (at least the particular details of it in question here), however, I don't see this to be the case, and the examples you're pointing out don't demonstrate it to be the case. I've never seen a Magisterial statement teaching the thing you are claiming Catholicism teaches about the Pope - that he could, for example, contradict the dogmatic definitions of one of the past ecumenical councils.

no, and I know that modern Catholics will say that they don't contradict. the problem is many Roman statements, that Popes have fought for, do (such as the filioque).

If you want to argue they do contradict, that's fine, but not the point.
But, it is quite another matter to claim that Vatican I says ex cathedra statements are "above any council" and that the Pope has the power to overturn the dogmatic definitions of a prior ecumenical council, as you did and continue to suggest was the teaching of the Church in the past. Pastor Aeternus said nothing of the sort, that was not the meaning of the passage in question, that is not the teaching of the Catholic Church, and I've seen no evidence showing it ever was the teaching of the Church. I'm pretty sure I've had discussions about this before, so it's quite frustrating to see the same errors about Catholicism repeated again. The fact is you were projecting a meaning onto the teaching of the Church which is not there.
As I've said, the point of the statement "such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable" regards the irreformability of ex cathedra statements and what is required as a condition for that. The answer is that they are irreformable of themselves - nothing else need be done to ensure they are true, as the charism of infallibility protects such definitions. That is all it means - not that they are "above councils," not "true even if they contradict councils," not "able to contradict councils." This meaning is further confirmed by the already-quoted Relatio of Fr. Vincent Gasser whose task was to explain the meaning of the document to the Bishops at Vatican I:
"Finally we do not separate the Pope, even minimally, from the consent of the Church, as long as that consent is not laid down as a condition which is
either antecedent or consequent. We are not able to separate the Pope from the consent of the Church because this consent is never able to be lacking to
him. Indeed, since we believe that the Pope is infallible through the divine assistance, by that very fact we also believe that the assent of the Church
will not be lacking to his definitions since it is not able to happen that the body of bishops be separated from its head, and since the Church universal is
not able to fail. For it is impossible that general obscurity be spread in respect to the more important truths which touch upon religion,"

In other words the point is that there is no external condition necessary to make ex cathedra statements irreformable or infallible. But, since they are infallible and the universal Church and body of bishops are also unable to fall into error or be separated from their head, it is not possible for the consent of the Church and papal definitions to be in contradiction.
This, of course, to be clear, is not because the Pope's ex cathedra statements are able to reverse old definitions (which is the opposite of what infallibility implies) - but because they are true and cannot be in error and, therefore, cannot contradict any other infallible teaching. Other infallible teachings include, not only papal definitions, but also the definitions of ecumenical councils. Since all of these are infallible (i.e. unable to fall into error, by the protection of the Holy Spirit, and therefore true), they cannot contradict. That they are both infallible is stated, for example, in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

"890...To fulfill this service, Christ endowed the Church's shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals. The exercise of this charism takes several forms:

891 "The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium," above all in an Ecumenical Council.418 When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed,"419 and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith."420 This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself."

In summary, according to Catholicism, the Holy Spirit protects the dogmatic definitions of the Church from error. These dogmatic definitions can take the form of the definitive teachings of an ecumenical council, as well the ex cathedra definitions of a Pope (which needs no other confirmation to approval to confirm it's infallibility). Therefore, these teachings will always be true and, therefore, unable to contradict each other and, as such, no definition by an ecumenical council or a Pope will contradict a prior definition. That is the teaching of the Catholic Church. If you still believe the Catholic Church teaches otherwise, than please show where that is taught (not simply where Pope's allegedly contradicted prior teachings, such as the filioque, since that would simply prove the actual teaching of the RCC as I've explained it is wrong, would not prove your interpretation of RCC right, and fails to address the main points you and I are discussing). If not, then please be aware of the actual teaching of the Catholic Church when addressing the topics of the papacy, reunion with Rome, etc., and please no longer misrepresent it, since that can do no good....

 

[GregConstantine]

"It is simply not possible for any of us to be who we once were; too much time has passed and we have new families, new responsibilities. We certainly can't say, if you will become who you were 20 years ago and discard your wife and children I will accept you as my brother; that isn't how it works, for anyone."

If you believe this, then you must believe that God does not keep His promises, that He goes back on His word, and that everything that the Apostles and the Church fathers wrote and taught about the nature of the Church is either a farce, or they are wrong.

No, the story would go more like this:

Once upon a time there were 5 children (Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople, Rome) All were faithful to their Father, and loved their Father and each other and lived in perfect unity with one another. One of them named Rome, was especially faithful. She played a strong leadership role in the family. However, the temptation of pride hit Rome very strongly. She took a looked at the family's traditions, and decided that more needed to be added to it. She also felt that she deserved a much stronger leadership role that made her the leader over all of her other siblings, rather than leadership being shared equally amongst all.

Due to these two things (lording leadership and adding to the family traditions) Rome became estranged from the rest of the family. Eventually, she decided to go her own way and separated from the rest of the family. Of course, she continued to maintain much of the same traditions of original family, but she continued to keep adding more and more traditions while being separated from the rest of the family.

Rome eventually had children of her own, but they were very rebellious (protestants) seeing that their mother rebelled against the original family, they were able to justify their own rebellion. Rome's children had many other children of their own, all were rebellious just like their mother and grandmother.

The other 4 children of the original family, continues to this day to live in love and unity with each other, with the occasional squabble here and there.

Now, Rome, perhaps missing her original family, has tried to come back, but, she insist that nothing went wrong to begin with, and insist that she keeps the new traditions in addition to the original ones. Her other sisters, while greeting her with open arms, remind her that she needs to get rid of the new traditions before she can be fully welcome back into the family.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I suspect the possibility that what you are saying is true regarding the RCC's understanding of or position on some topics (such as, maybe, purgatory and "temporal punishment due to sins," original sin, the Filioque, the Orthodox Churches).
As regards the topic you and I are discussing (at least the particular details of it in question here), however, I don't see this to be the case, and the examples you're pointing out don't demonstrate it to be the case. I've never seen a Magisterial statement teaching the thing you are claiming Catholicism teaches about the Pope - that he could, for example, contradict the dogmatic definitions of one of the past ecumenical councils.

no I said they would never admit that they can do that (I at least think I said that earlier). the only thing that I can say where this does come down where a Pope does contradict earlier councils, Catholic friends usually chalk it under progressive revelation. but yes, no Pope would ever claim that he can contradict an earlier council.

But, it is quite another matter to claim that Vatican I says ex cathedra statements are "above any council" and that the Pope has the power to overturn the dogmatic definitions of a prior ecumenical council, as you did and continue to suggest was the teaching of the Church in the past.

well, like I said I know on paper they will never say that they contradict the Councils. but there has to be some rationale as to why it was done.

That is all it means - not that they are "above councils," not "true even if they contradict councils," not "able to contradict councils." This meaning is further confirmed by the already-quoted Relatio of Fr. Vincent Gasser whose task was to explain the meaning of the document to the Bishops at Vatican I:
"Finally we do not separate the Pope, even minimally, from the consent of the Church, as long as that consent is not laid down as a condition which is
either antecedent or consequent. We are not able to separate the Pope from the consent of the Church because this consent is never able to be lacking to
him. Indeed, since we believe that the Pope is infallible through the divine assistance, by that very fact we also believe that the assent of the Church
will not be lacking to his definitions since it is not able to happen that the body of bishops be separated from its head, and since the Church universal is
not able to fail. For it is impossible that general obscurity be spread in respect to the more important truths which touch upon religion,"

again, I get that is what they say on paper, but actions speak louder than words. I can say I am an Orthodox Christian because I was baptized, but if what I do in my day to day contradicts what Orthodoxy says, it doesn't matter what I say on paper about myself. I am no Orthodox Christian. Rome can say that the role of the Pope and Papal infallibility does not contradict, but the fact that it DOES at least one of the two times it has been implemented, speaks much louder.

In other words the point is that there is no external condition necessary to make ex cathedra statements irreformable or infallible. But, since they are infallible and the universal Church and body of bishops are also unable to fall into error or be separated from their head, it is not possible for the consent of the Church and papal definitions to be in contradiction.
This, of course, to be clear, is not because the Pope's ex cathedra statements are able to reverse old definitions (which is the opposite of what infallibility implies) - but because they are true and cannot be in error and, therefore, cannot contradict any other infallible teaching. Other infallible teachings include, not only papal definitions, but also the definitions of ecumenical councils. Since all of these are infallible (i.e. unable to fall into error, by the protection of the Holy Spirit, and therefore true), they cannot contradict. That they are both infallible is stated, for example, in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

"890...To fulfill this service, Christ endowed the Church's shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals. The exercise of this charism takes several forms:

891 "The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium," above all in an Ecumenical Council.418 When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed,"419 and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith."420 This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself."

and again, since this thread is about what divides us, I don't care if they claim that they will not reverse an Ecumenical council when they do. maybe I should have said it leaves the door open for an open reversal of an Ecumenical Council.

 

[ArmyMatt]

so again, forgive me if you think I am misrepresenting RC belief, but this does come from talks that I have had with Catholics and how they view the role of the Pope (in addition to folks on here). and I guess I should have been more clear that it does not matter that Papal infallibility does not say that it would contradict the councils, when history shows that it does.

 

[MilesVitae]

Matt, the difficulty was you were not just looking at the actions of the RCC, criticizing them, and pointing out why they were wrong. Rather, you had taken a passage from Vatican I's document defining the infallibility of papal magisterium (the document Pastor Aeternus) and explicitly claimed it's teaching was that a Pope could reverse the definitions of an ecumenical council, and also you've continued to imply (it sounded like to me) that this had been the position in the past and it was merely modern Catholics who no longer held to it.
I'm not at all trying to discount your historical evidence which seems to prove inconsistencies in Catholicism's doctrinal record. But, I'm sure we can agree there is a distinction between pointing out evidence against a church's teaching, and claiming the teaching is something other than it is. If I were to argue the RCC's position against the EOC, I might say the EOC contradicts the faith of the early Church on some point (purgatory, filioque, papacy - whatever the topic was), but that would be quite another matter from me making it seem like the EOC believes she has the authority to contradict the teaching of the early Church. It makes it difficult to have honest progress in dialogue if we don't accurately describe the beliefs we are dialoguing about.

Anyway, that's my main beef - if my repetition hasn't already made that clear.
So, putting that aside, I have a few thoughts on the whole relationship of papal authority to apparent changes in dogma. I do think the Catholic Church has possibly contradicted past teachings and changed its position, as you say. I'm not sure this really has much to do with the RCC's claims regarding papal authority, though. I think the same thing could just as easily happen in the RCC in the context of an ecumenical council as an ex cathedra definition - and arguably it has happened in a council, such as in the case of the filioque. The apologist' rationalization for these instances, of course, would be an appeal to development of doctrine (even if what really happened was not development but contradiction - which is why I'm calling it a rationalization) and/or an attempt to reinterpret the meaning of past teachings. It doesn't seem to me like claims of papal authority are the real root of the problem, anymore than claims of conciliar authority or innerrancy of the Church and/or magisterium (claims similar to those made by the EOC) are the root of the problem.
To use that comparison: The RCC teaches the infallibility of ecumenical councils (which implies, of course, that the ecumenical councils cannot contradict past councils or the original faith of the Church). And yet (if the claims of many in the EOC are right), several of our councils have done just this (Lyons, Florence, Vatican I, regarding the papacy and filioque). But, I think it would be a mistake to then say "Well, the root of the problem here is the RCC's belief in the authority of ecumenical councils."
The problem, if the RCC has erred and contradicted past teaching is...well, just that...The RCC has erred and fallen away from the true Church and is, thus, not protected by the Holy Spirit from error.

Also, you said "Rome can say that the role of the Pope and Papal infallibility does not contradict, but the fact that it DOES at least one of the two times it has been implemented, speaks much louder." Which case are you referring to?

 

[fat wee robin]

This is what we know, this influence does not come fron China, not from Africa, not from Latin Ametica, not from the muslims. It does not originate from Russia, nor the Balkans. Not from the hindus of India, not from the buddhists of Sri Lanka. We can even say it does not originate from Italy.

We know it is exclusively the Anglicans that have come up with this patriarchalism heresy. Its their obsession simply peek into their forum for the past decade. We know they have been involved in the gender wars and older anglo men have complained about anglo women thinking their dirty or that sex is dirty, low self esteem etc. And this originates from the puritans and the victorian era. We also know those sects that espouse this are the closest to the Anglicans, both geographically, religiously and culturally.

Interesting as I have just been reading about how the early christian Church in Ireland had a much healthier attitude to sex ,and other things ,but through the colonialist English began to be become obsessed with sexual sin as opposed to others ,seeing all expression popular, like Celtic culture as bad .Unfortunately the RCC was able to
benefit from this oppressive situation for the Irish ,and became part of the problem .
(Thoma Cahill ,"How the Irish saved civilisation ".) Of course you in the east did not need saving ,but the west did .

The rejection of the RCC in Ireland goes way back to the manipulation ,lies and down right cruelty of this organisation at this time

 

[ArmyMatt]

Matt, the difficulty was you were not just looking at the actions of the RCC, criticizing them, and pointing out why they were wrong. Rather, you had taken a passage from Vatican I's document defining the infallibility of papal magisterium (the document Pastor Aeternus) and explicitly claimed it's teaching was that a Pope could reverse the definitions of an ecumenical council, and also you've continued to imply (it sounded like to me) that this had been the position in the past and it was merely modern Catholics who no longer held to it.

and I apologize for that, and this was also from talking to other RC than those that I normally do on here, and I do know more than one that has that position, that it can happen due to the belief in progressive revelation. I know this was not what you were saying, and sorry again for getting you confused with others I have spoken to. I should remember my audience.

But, I'm sure we can agree there is a distinction between pointing out evidence against a church's teaching, and claiming the teaching is something other than it is. If I were to argue the RCC's position against the EOC, I might say the EOC contradicts the faith of the early Church on some point (purgatory, filioque, papacy - whatever the topic was), but that would be quite another matter from me making it seem like the EOC believes she has the authority to contradict the teaching of the early Church. It makes it difficult to have honest progress in dialogue if we don't accurately describe the beliefs we are dialoguing about.

I concede this point, I can see looking back how I came across that way. and again, my bad for doing that. I guess I got off on a tangent I didn't mean to.

So, putting that aside, I have a few thoughts on the whole relationship of papal authority to apparent changes in dogma. I do think the Catholic Church has possibly contradicted past teachings and changed its position, as you say. I'm not sure this really has much to do with the RCC's claims regarding papal authority, though. I think the same thing could just as easily happen in the RCC in the context of an ecumenical council as an ex cathedra definition - and arguably it has happened in a council, such as in the case of the filioque. The apologist' rationalization for these instances, of course, would be an appeal to development of doctrine (even if what really happened was not development but contradiction - which is why I'm calling it a rationalization) and/or an attempt to reinterpret the meaning of past teachings. It doesn't seem to me like claims of papal authority are the real root of the problem, anymore than claims of conciliar authority or innerrancy of the Church and/or magisterium (claims similar to those made by the EOC) are the root of the problem.

I think I could agree here, but it seems that Papal authority and infallibility are interconnected. and history (again) supports conciliarity and the claims made by us EO. the 6th council (I believe it was) was called and enacted before Rome's delegation even made it there.

To use that comparison: The RCC teaches the infallibility of ecumenical councils (which implies, of course, that the ecumenical councils cannot contradict past councils or the original faith of the Church). And yet (if the claims of many in the EOC are right), several of our councils have done just this (Lyons, Florence, Vatican I, regarding the papacy and filioque). But, I think it would be a mistake to then say "Well, the root of the problem here is the RCC's belief in the authority of ecumenical councils."

I think I can kinda agree. I think we would say the root of the problem here in the RCC is that they have the wrong authority (just in general).

The problem, if the RCC has erred and contradicted past teaching is...well, just that...The RCC has erred and fallen away from the true Church and is, thus, not protected by the Holy Spirit from error.

indeed

Also, you said "Rome can say that the role of the Pope and Papal infallibility does not contradict, but the fact that it DOES at least one of the two times it has been implemented, speaks much louder." Which case are you referring to?

to my knowledge, the only two infallible statements concern Papal infallibility and the Immaculate Conception of Mary. I don't know about what any council says concerning her IC, but the claim of Papal infallibility and why the Pope has it does contradict the earlier councils.

 

[MilesVitae]

and I apologize for that, and this was also from talking to other RC than those that I normally do on here, and I do know more than one that has that position, that it can happen due to the belief in progressive revelation. I know this was not what you were saying, and sorry again for getting you confused with others I have spoken to. I should remember my audience.

Well, I wasn't taking it as a personal affront - my offense was only at the confusion regarding RCC teaching itself. And if you are hearing this from Catholics themselves, well, I can't blame you for assuming that's the actual teaching. I apologize if at any point I laid too much blame at your feet personally.
Catholics will say that things not explicitly defined and made clear in the past can be defined by the Pope (or councils, for that matter), which is of course different from contradiction prior teaching. Maybe that's what they meant? Or maybe they're just extremists who contradict the very teaching of the Church they claim to defend

I concede this point, I can see looking back how I came across that way. and again, my bad for doing that. I guess I got off on a tangent I didn't mean to.

Okay, groovy

I think I could agree here, but it seems that Papal authority and infallibility are interconnected. and history (again) supports conciliarity and the claims made by us EO. the 6th council (I believe it was) was called and enacted before Rome's delegation even made it there.

Oh, I didn't mean to make any significant distinction between "authority" and "infallibility" in that statement (speaking of accuracy and clarity ) - just that the RCC's position about the Pope doesn't seem to be the source of the problem. And, of course, there may be evidence for our mutual (at least, similar) beliefs about councils while none for the papacy - I wasn't addressing the truth of either, simply using councils as a parallel example to support my point.

to my knowledge, the only two infallible statements concern Papal infallibility and the Immaculate Conception of Mary. I don't know about what any council says concerning her IC, but the claim of Papal infallibility and why the Pope has it does contradict the earlier councils.

The two statements people usually point to as definite examples of ex cathedra definitions are the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption. The definition of papal infallibility took place in the context of the Vatican I council, so I think it's considered a definition by a council...but, if I remember, the council ended prematurely so maybe there's some debate on that point I'm unaware of. Also, these aren't considered to necessarily be the only ex cathedra definitions - there are others as well from prior to Vatican I consider to fit the criterion of infallibility. Of course, there's no official list and there is some debate on which ones fit the bill, which raises the question how useful can this charism really be (or at least Vatican I's explanation of it) if we can't determine which teachings were ex cathedra....

 

[buzuxi02]

Interesting as I have just been reading about how the early christian Church in Ireland had a much healthier attitude to sex ,and other things ,but through the colonialist English began to be become obsessed with sexual sin as opposed to others ,seeing all expression popular, like Celtic culture as bad .Unfortunately the RCC was able to
benefit from this oppressive situation for the Irish ,and became part of the problem .

I believe it. Originally I would hear criticisms of the sexual attitudes originating from anglo culture, about 'puritanical' thinking, criticism of victorian era values, etc (mostly from anglo men). Didnt know what they were talking about, to me victorian era was something in the movies where women wore fancy dresses. Recently i started realizing there was more to it.
The obsession of the anglican church for the past decade about making 'right' the 'sins' of past patriarchal dominance, equality of the sexes because past christians were not christian enough is truly a bizarre theory. Something most men and women find laughable.
Let me give you some modern things that has stood out to me like a sore thumb which to me is an unhealthy sexual attitude of the gender wars found in anglo culture. I noticed many times that brits and even canadiens when speaking about their wife or husband or fiance as 'partner'. For example "Me and my partner went to the movies." Your partner??? business partner? mistress?? Where does this vocabulary originate from?

Then the Rotherdamn mess broke, initially teen girls voluntarily behind their parents backs began dating saracens. It morphed into a web of sexual abuse and what does the british media and all of England call it???? Something called 'grooming'!. Are these people insane??? Grooming? Its called rape and sexual enslavement in healthy parts of the world. In the muslim world its called a harem. No in british media they made it sound like they did the girls a favor, "they were groomed"... Truly sick stuff.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Well, I wasn't taking it as a personal affront - my offense was only at the confusion regarding RCC teaching itself. And if you are hearing this from Catholics themselves, well, I can't blame you for assuming that's the actual teaching. I apologize if at any point I laid too much blame at your feet personally.

it's cool man, it wasn't too much at my feet, at least any more than I prolly deserved.

Catholics will say that things not explicitly defined and made clear in the past can be defined by the Pope (or councils, for that matter), which is of course different from contradiction prior teaching. Maybe that's what they meant? Or maybe they're just extremists who contradict the very teaching of the Church they claim to defend

maybe, or maybe they are taking one portion and just running with it. I dunno.

The two statements people usually point to as definite examples of ex cathedra definitions are the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption. The definition of papal infallibility took place in the context of the Vatican I council, so I think it's considered a definition by a council...but, if I remember, the council ended prematurely so maybe there's some debate on that point I'm unaware of. Also, these aren't considered to necessarily be the only ex cathedra definitions - there are others as well from prior to Vatican I consider to fit the criterion of infallibility. Of course, there's no official list and there is some debate on which ones fit the bill, which raises the question how useful can this charism really be (or at least Vatican I's explanation of it) if we can't determine which teachings were ex cathedra....

I always heard that the assumption is not one because they had no consensus on whether she died or not before the assumption occurred. are there any before the Schism that look like infallibility being exercised?

 

[MilesVitae]

I always heard that the assumption is not one because they had no consensus on whether she died or not before the assumption occurred. are there any before the Schism that look like infallibility being exercised?

Ah, the Assumption is definitely one. The RCC has no definite teaching on whether she died first or not (I'm not sure at this point what the favored position is, if any), but it is a dogma that she was assumed when the course of her time on earth came to an end.
I don't know off hand what else are often considered to meet the criterion for an infallible statement...this is about where my knowledge of this topic starts to end, so I'll point you to the all-knowing wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility#Instances_of_infallible_declarations. I've seen tentative lists before including some of those they mention.

 

[CelticRebel]

I believe it. Originally I would hear criticisms of the sexual attitudes originating from anglo culture, about 'puritanical' thinking, criticism of victorian era values, etc (mostly from anglo men). Didnt know what they were talking about, to me victorian era was something in the movies where women wore fancy dresses. Recently i started realizing there was more to it.
The obsession of the anglican church for the past decade about making 'right' the 'sins' of past patriarchal dominance, equality of the sexes because past christians were not christian enough is truly a bizarre theory. Something most men and women find laughable.
Let me give you some modern things that has stood out to me like a sore thumb which to me is an unhealthy sexual attitude of the gender wars found in anglo culture. I noticed many times that brits and even canadiens when speaking about their wife or husband or fiance as 'partner'. For example "Me and my partner went to the movies." Your partner??? business partner? mistress?? Where does this vocabulary originate from?

Then the Rotherdamn mess broke, initially teen girls voluntarily behind their parents backs began dating saracens. It morphed into a web of sexual abuse and what does the british media and all of England call it???? Something called 'grooming'!. Are these people insane??? Grooming? Its called rape and sexual enslavement in healthy parts of the world. In the muslim world its called a harem. No in british media they made it sound like they did the girls a favor, "they were groomed"... Truly sick stuff.

Yes, modern society has changed the meaning of the word "partner", and also "gay".

 

[Jesus4Madrid]

I suspect the possibility that what you are saying is true regarding the RCC's understanding of or position on some topics (such as, maybe, purgatory and "temporal punishment due to sins," original sin, the Filioque, the Orthodox Churches).
As regards the topic you and I are discussing (at least the particular details of it in question here), however, I don't see this to be the case, and the examples you're pointing out don't demonstrate it to be the case. I've never seen a Magisterial statement teaching the thing you are claiming Catholicism teaches about the Pope - that he could, for example, contradict the dogmatic definitions of one of the past ecumenical councils.



If you want to argue they do contradict, that's fine, but not the point.
But, it is quite another matter to claim that Vatican I says ex cathedra statements are "above any council" and that the Pope has the power to overturn the dogmatic definitions of a prior ecumenical council, as you did and continue to suggest was the teaching of the Church in the past. Pastor Aeternus said nothing of the sort, that was not the meaning of the passage in question, that is not the teaching of the Catholic Church, and I've seen no evidence showing it ever was the teaching of the Church. I'm pretty sure I've had discussions about this before, so it's quite frustrating to see the same errors about Catholicism repeated again. The fact is you were projecting a meaning onto the teaching of the Church which is not there.
As I've said, the point of the statement "such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable" regards the irreformability of ex cathedra statements and what is required as a condition for that. The answer is that they are irreformable of themselves - nothing else need be done to ensure they are true, as the charism of infallibility protects such definitions. That is all it means - not that they are "above councils," not "true even if they contradict councils," not "able to contradict councils." This meaning is further confirmed by the already-quoted Relatio of Fr. Vincent Gasser whose task was to explain the meaning of the document to the Bishops at Vatican I:
"Finally we do not separate the Pope, even minimally, from the consent of the Church, as long as that consent is not laid down as a condition which is
either antecedent or consequent. We are not able to separate the Pope from the consent of the Church because this consent is never able to be lacking to
him. Indeed, since we believe that the Pope is infallible through the divine assistance, by that very fact we also believe that the assent of the Church
will not be lacking to his definitions since it is not able to happen that the body of bishops be separated from its head, and since the Church universal is
not able to fail. For it is impossible that general obscurity be spread in respect to the more important truths which touch upon religion,"

In other words the point is that there is no external condition necessary to make ex cathedra statements irreformable or infallible. But, since they are infallible and the universal Church and body of bishops are also unable to fall into error or be separated from their head, it is not possible for the consent of the Church and papal definitions to be in contradiction.
This, of course, to be clear, is not because the Pope's ex cathedra statements are able to reverse old definitions (which is the opposite of what infallibility implies) - but because they are true and cannot be in error and, therefore, cannot contradict any other infallible teaching. Other infallible teachings include, not only papal definitions, but also the definitions of ecumenical councils. Since all of these are infallible (i.e. unable to fall into error, by the protection of the Holy Spirit, and therefore true), they cannot contradict. That they are both infallible is stated, for example, in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

"890...To fulfill this service, Christ endowed the Church's shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals. The exercise of this charism takes several forms:

891 "The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium," above all in an Ecumenical Council.418 When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed,"419 and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith."420 This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself."

In summary, according to Catholicism, the Holy Spirit protects the dogmatic definitions of the Church from error. These dogmatic definitions can take the form of the definitive teachings of an ecumenical council, as well the ex cathedra definitions of a Pope (which needs no other confirmation to approval to confirm it's infallibility). Therefore, these teachings will always be true and, therefore, unable to contradict each other and, as such, no definition by an ecumenical council or a Pope will contradict a prior definition. That is the teaching of the Catholic Church. If you still believe the Catholic Church teaches otherwise, than please show where that is taught (not simply where Pope's allegedly contradicted prior teachings, such as the filioque, since that would simply prove the actual teaching of the RCC as I've explained it is wrong, would not prove your interpretation of RCC right, and fails to address the main points you and I are discussing). If not, then please be aware of the actual teaching of the Catholic Church when addressing the topics of the papacy, reunion with Rome, etc., and please no longer misrepresent it, since that can do no good....

This is a valiant effort, but the Catholic doctrine of infallibility that you are arguing is essentially a tautology.

1. The Roman Pope is infallible when speaking ex cathedra.
2. Ex cathedra statements are those that are infallible "(ex cathedra definitions of a Pope (which needs no other confirmation to approval to confirm it's infallibility)"

As you later admit, the Roman Church cannot definitively state what papal statements are made ex cathedra. "But it is certain that these ex cathedra statements are nonetheless true. Therefore, these teachings will always be true and, therefore, unable to contradict each other and, as such, no definition by an ecumenical council or a Pope will contradict a prior definition."

This sounds like something akin to the "no true Scotsman fallacy" and is just really an unproven and, ultimately non normative tenet of faith.

 

[MilesVitae]

This is a valiant effort, but the Catholic doctrine of infallibility that you are arguing is essentially a tautology.

1. The Roman Pope is infallible when speaking ex cathedra.
2. Ex cathedra statements are those that are infallible "(ex cathedra definitions of a Pope (which needs no other confirmation to approval to confirm it's infallibility)"

Thank you, but I'm not sure what valiant effort you have claimed for me.... I was neither defending the truth of Vatican I's definition, nor even it's reasonability, only defending it from a particular misinterpretation... The statement from Vatican I and my explanation thereof was merely a statement of the conditions for infallibility, not a circular attempt at proving their infallibility.

The conditions under which a papal statement are infallible are when the Pope

• that is, when,
• in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
• in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
• [the Pope] defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,

And such statements need no other approval for infallibility to accrue to them.

Again, this is the statement of the cases in which papal teachings are (according to Catholicism) infallible, and it is not an apologetic for that claim, so their is no circularity or tautology of the sort your describing.

As you later admit, the Roman Church cannot definitively state what papal statements are made ex cathedra. "But it is certain that these ex cathedra statements are nonetheless true. Therefore, these teachings will always be true and, therefore, unable to contradict each other and, as such, no definition by an ecumenical council or a Pope will contradict a prior definition."

This sounds like something akin to the "no true Scotsman fallacy" and is just really an unproven and, ultimately non normative tenet of faith.

As I've said, I think you may have misinterpreted my intent as apologetical.... There is no fallacy here. Otherwise, both our Churches are in trouble! After all, as we can both agree, "Definitions of ecumenical councils are infallible. Therefore, they are unable to contradict each other and no definition by an ecumenical council will contradict the definition of a prior council."

 

[ArmyMatt]

Ah, the Assumption is definitely one. The RCC has no definite teaching on whether she died first or not (I'm not sure at this point what the favored position is, if any), but it is a dogma that she was assumed when the course of her time on earth came to an end.

gotcha, I always heard that her Assumption was not ex cathedra.

I don't know off hand what else are often considered to meet the criterion for an infallible statement...this is about where my knowledge of this topic starts to end, so I'll point you to the all-knowing wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility#Instances_of_infallible_declarations. I've seen tentative lists before including some of those they mention.

thanks, I know St Leo's Tome does not fit if you look how it was handled by the other fathers at the council, not sure about Agatho's letter. the others are post schism so I don't venture much concern there.

 

[MilesVitae]

thanks, I know St Leo's Tome does not fit if you look how it was handled by the other fathers at the council, not sure about Agatho's letter. the others are post schism so I don't venture much concern there.

Yeah, I was never sure either about Leo's statement one way or another from what I understanding I have of the issues involved....

 

[Jesus4Madrid]

Thank you, but I'm not sure what valiant effort you have claimed for me.... I was neither defending the truth of Vatican I's definition, nor even it's reasonability, only defending it from a particular misinterpretation... The statement from Vatican I and my explanation thereof was merely a statement of the conditions for infallibility, not a circular attempt at proving their infallibility.

The conditions under which a papal statement are infallible are when the Pope

• that is, when,
• in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
• in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
• [the Pope] defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,

And such statements need no other approval for infallibility to accrue to them.

Again, this is the statement of the cases in which papal teachings are (according to Catholicism) infallible, and it is not an apologetic for that claim, so their is no circularity or tautology of the sort your describing.



As I've said, I think you may have misinterpreted my intent as apologetical.... There is no fallacy here. Otherwise, both our Churches are in trouble! After all, as we can both agree, "Definitions of ecumenical councils are infallible. Therefore, they are unable to contradict each other and no definition by an ecumenical council will contradict the definition of a prior council."

The fallacy lies in applying the definition you cite above or the notion of Ex Cathedra. Unless the Pope is infallible every time he speaks or writes something, an individual Catholic's judgement about what is infallible influences his judgement about whether the conditions above are being met. If that were not the case, Roman Catholics would all agree on what are infallible papal statements. Yet they do not. So papal pronouncements are not infallible, unless Catholics say they are (which is circular).

Also, we cannot both agree about the infallibility of Ecumenical Councils. The Ecumenical Councils themselves do not use the word "infallibility" so why should we? Orthodox are generally reluctant to use that word, even when speaking of the Bible. The only council that uses that word that I am aware of is the local Synod of Jerusalem (1672), which is much criticised for being influenced by Latins.

 

[GregConstantine]

Most Orthodox do not describe the Ecumenical councils in and of themselves as "infallible". Plus, what the Ecumenical Councils do is reiterate what the Church has always believed and taught. The language used to describe the teachings of the Church may develop, but not the actual doctrines themselves.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Yeah, I was never sure either about Leo's statement one way or another from what I understanding I have of the issues involved....

well the reason that the Tome does not show infallibility is because it was scrutinized by the other Fathers that were there because they were worried the Monophysites were right and that it sounded Nestorian. it was only after they realized that it was not Nestorian that it was accepted. if the Church understood that Infallibility was what we discussed earlier it is, there would have been no scrutiny by at least a sizable portion of the Fathers there, knowing that the Pope would not have erred.