Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 16 of 16

Thread: Questions About Papal Infallibility

  1. #11
    tWebber The Remonstrant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    538
    Amen (Given)
    129
    Amen (Received)
    54
    Quote Originally Posted by Leonhard View Post
    […] The history of the church is long and messy.
    ‘[I]n Gethsemane, in human form and in the moment of His greatest weakness, He willingly submitted Himself to go through with the plan of salvation. Christ was not obliged to die for humanity, a slave to sovereign predestination; He willingly and fully gave Himself over to be crucified.’
    —Kim Papaioannou, ‘Predestination? A Theology of Divine Intention’, Ministry (Mar. 2014): 8



  2. #12
    tWebber
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    76
    Amen (Given)
    0
    Amen (Received)
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by Leonhard View Post
    Yes.



    One was real the other were fakes.



    1st Vatican Council.

    Source: Decrees of the First Vatican Council

    we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that
    when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,
    that is, when,
    in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
    in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
    he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,
    he possesses,
    by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,
    that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
    Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.

    © Copyright Original Source



    As stated, its only when a pope speaks ex cathedra that his utterances are considered infallible (read - irreformable), and binding on all believers as a matter of faith. This has happened only two times in history though.
    I am not sure that the word "retroactive" is accurate, it implies that the doctrine is applied to previous cases where it did not exist. Catholics hold that the popes have had the same function throughout history.

    I have a question for the Protestants: if someone asks how to get to heaven, would you consider your answer to be fallible or infallible? I ask because usually this discussion revolves around what things are infallible and what fallible/infallible actually means, as well as the source of any infallibility.

    And another question, when was the trinity actually defined? How do we date the "invention" of the trinity?

  3. #13
    tWebber
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    76
    Amen (Given)
    0
    Amen (Received)
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by One Bad Pig View Post
    What bugs me about this is the general post facto nature of these sorts of declarations, by the winning side. I'm also uncomfortable with the idea of "anti-popes" which is essentially a whitewash of the papal list.
    The winning side got to write the Athanasian Creed, the Arians didn't get their formulation accepted. The winning side rejected the gnostic writings in the early centuries. The winning side condemned the heresies of Arianism, Monothelites, Monophysites, Nestorians, Pelagians.

    Would you prefer that the losing side gets to define Christianity?

  4. #14
    tWebber Teallaura's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    In my house.
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    11,603
    Amen (Given)
    4931
    Amen (Received)
    4342
    Was there some part of 'not debating' that you didn't get?

    Anyway, I got what I needed. Thanks everyone - y'all can take it from here.

  5. #15
    tWebber
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    76
    Amen (Given)
    0
    Amen (Received)
    24
    apologies.

  6. #16
    Must...have...caffeine One Bad Pig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Inside the beltway
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    14,573
    Amen (Given)
    4743
    Amen (Received)
    8603
    Quote Originally Posted by simplicio View Post
    The winning side got to write the Athanasian Creed, the Arians didn't get their formulation accepted. The winning side rejected the gnostic writings in the early centuries. The winning side condemned the heresies of Arianism, Monothelites, Monophysites, Nestorians, Pelagians.

    Would you prefer that the losing side gets to define Christianity?
    The Arians were on the winning side of several councils which gave the alternative creeds which were more acceptable to them. The so-called Athanasian Creed wasn't written by Athanasius, and is AFAIR Western (and non-conciliar) in origin. This is pretty much beside the point, however, since the 'anti-popes' weren't generally labeled as heretical, merely unworthy of the chair and/or schismatic. Further, the emphasis of what bugs me is not "winning side" but "post facto nature." All those other 'winning sides' of which you speak held their positions prior to winning.
    Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

    Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio

    I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •