B...but the pope is only infallible when he speaks ex cathedra

B...but the pope is only infallible when he speaks ex cathedra

Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68

Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68

Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68

  1. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Yeah, who came up with that? Why isn't he infallible all the time?

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      It's especially odd when the pope is babbling non-stop heresy when he is not ex cathedra

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      papist cope to deal with the fact that most popes have been shitty people and heretics

      >n-no it's fine pope whatshisname V was a child fricking heretic because IT JUST IS OKAY???

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Because he's just a man.

      It's the high ecclesiastical office he holds that is infallable, not the man. That's why the pope is only infallable in discharge from that office of apostolic authority.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        I thought you call him the vicar of Christ or something

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Because he's just a man
        Who's infallible sometimes
        >It's the high ecclesiastical office he holds that is infallable, not the man
        It's the holder of the ecclesiastical office who is infallible, IE the pope.
        >That's why the pope is only infallable in discharge from that office of apostolic authority.
        And why isn't that all the time he is pope?

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          >It's the holder of the ecclesiastical office who is infallible, IE the pope.

          Only when speaking with the full authority of his office.

          >why isn't that all the time he is pope

          Because sometimes men don't spend all day in the office doing official things. They go home, take a shower, yell at the TV.

          A courtroom judge can talk about his legal opinions outside of work hours, but that doesn't make them binding. His decisions are only legally binding when made in his official capacity.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Only when speaking with the full authority of his office.
            Why he can't he speak with full authority all the time?
            >Because sometimes men don't spend all day in the office doing official things.
            Why is his power limited to being in an office? Who made that rule?

            >A courtroom judge can talk about his legal opinions outside of work hours, but that doesn't make them binding. His decisions are only legally binding when made in his official capacity.
            And a King still has power all of the time, no matters if he's in his court or wherever. Why isn't the pope like that?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >And a King still has power all of the time, no matters if he's in his court or wherever.
            Different anon but jumping in because That’s an objective lie and your know it.
            I’m pretty sure that classifies as bearing false witness and is a mortal sin.
            The Sultan (King) of Oman has zero authority in Australia.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            The Pope has universal temporal power and jurisdiction over the entire world
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierocracy_(medieval)

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Anon, I……. this is bait right?
            >And a King still has power all of the time, no matters if he's in his court or wherever.
            >And a King still has power all of the time
            >And a King
            >a King
            Please stop trying to manipulate in context after you made your post.
            You didn’t say the Pope, you said a King.
            So I will call on you to accept that you lied, and will call on you to turn to God repentance. What you do next is between you and him.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >a King still has power all of the time

            Does that mean he can't make an error? Nope. Plenty of kings made fatal errors while weilding their authority.

            The Holy See is qualitatively different than the secular authority you're comparing it to.

            >Why is his power limited to being in an office?
            Because the pope derives his powers from the office, not the other way around.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Does that mean he can't make an error?
            No one says kings are infallible, it was just to demonstrate that someone can have power while not being in an office doing official duties.
            >The Holy See is qualitatively different than the secular authority you're comparing it to.
            Not really, refer to

            >And a King still has power all of the time, no matters if he's in his court or wherever.
            Different anon but jumping in because That’s an objective lie and your know it.
            I’m pretty sure that classifies as bearing false witness and is a mortal sin.
            The Sultan (King) of Oman has zero authority in Australia.

            and Vatican 1
            >Because the pope derives his powers from the office, not the other way around.
            He's still the pope whether he's in the Vatican or not

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            *refer to

            The Pope has universal temporal power and jurisdiction over the entire world
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierocracy_(medieval)

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >while not being in an office
            >whether he's in the Vatican or not

            It's not the literal chair you sit in, or the physical location that makes that office infallable.

            You're thinking about this like it were in an literal office building, the religious sense of the word is more abstract.

            >No one says kings are infallible

            Yeah, I know. That's why it's a poor comparison.

            >How could we have faith in Christ if we don't know for 100% sure we have His teachings, unchanged, and inerrant from the beginning of time.
            Faith is believing in things you don't know for certainty. If you knew 100% it wouldn't be faith.

            >Faith is believing in things you don't know for certainty.

            Eh not really, if you look into the etymology of the word "faith" you'll find "fides" or "fidelity". Basically it means obedience or loyalty.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Eh not really, if you look into the etymology of the word "faith" you'll find "fides" or "fidelity". Basically it means obedience or loyalty.
            Not him but this is the most pedantic shit in the world. No one cares what the etymology suggests, only what the common usage is. Th common usage of the term faith, as regards religion, is a strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, derived from spiritual understanding, not necessarily from evidence.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >No one cares what the etymology suggests, only what the common usage is.

            If you use a word to mean something other than what it actually means you're either young, dumb, or trying to mislead people.

            Ever hear of Sola *Fide*? It's commonly translated as "faith alone". But fidelity doesn't really mean what most people think they mean when they use the word "faith".

            It's not so much "belief" as it is "trust". Similar terms, but there is a qualitative difference between them and even more implied.
            This has lead to a great deal of confusion over time.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            NTA but I've exchanged tens of thousands of words worth of emails with my pastor over matters of etymology.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      >who came up with that?
      1st Vatican Council.
      >Why isn't he infallible all the time?
      Because the 1st Vatican Council decided that he should no longer be infallible all the time.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        Are Vatican councils infallible?

  2. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    If the medieval church had a, say, Cathar Pope, I wonder how far this Ex Cathedra cope would have carried him

  3. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Yes

  4. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    I genuinely don't get how people can take Catholicism seriously if you just look at the basic history of law and religion in ancient Rome. It is /literally/ just a continuation of the pagan Pontifex Maximus tradition, it has nothing to do with any scripture.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      I'm Orthodox and I'm not so concerned about it not being in scripture, because many traditions are not in scripture. But more concerned if it fits the theme of scripture and having a medieval God-King seems doesn't seem to match. If Catholicism was true, why would Jesus have 12 apostles? Just have one successor (Peter) and it would be enough

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        >I’m orthodox
        Old Believer Bespopovtsy Orthodox?
        Oriental Orthodox?
        Assyrian Orthodox Church of the East?
        Eastern Orthodox on the side of Russia in the current schism?
        Or Eastern Orthodox on the side of the Constantinople, Alexandria, Ukraine, Greece & Cyprus in the current schism?
        Or Old Calenderist Eastern Orthodox (such as the Matthewites & Cyprianites)?
        Or Western Orthodox Churches (such as the Celtic Orthodox Church & British Orthodox Church)?
        Or “True” Orthodox?
        >If Catholicism was true, why would Jesus have 12 apostles? Just have one successor (Peter) and it would be enough
        Anon, I…….. by that logic your a Mormon, cause they have the quorum of 12.
        If the Pentarchy was true, why would Jesus have 12 apostles? Just have 5 successors and it would be enough

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      *ahem*

      16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

      17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

      18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

      19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

      20 Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.

      >I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

      Seems very explicit to me.

      I'm Orthodox and I'm not so concerned about it not being in scripture, because many traditions are not in scripture. But more concerned if it fits the theme of scripture and having a medieval God-King seems doesn't seem to match. If Catholicism was true, why would Jesus have 12 apostles? Just have one successor (Peter) and it would be enough

      >Just have one successor (Peter) and it would be enough

      The mission to the gentiles involved vast distances the disciples would have to cover and communicate over, many churches to found. One man couldn't have done it all.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Seems very explicit to me.
        Protestants imagine Jesus is talking to them specifically. They all think this. They're never an average disciple in their minds. They are one of the Twelve. But better. They're just like Peter. Then form their own denominations.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Apart from being in Rome itself and having responsibility for the calendar, the Pope and the Roman Republic's Pontiffs don't seem to have much in common.
      Yeah they share the title but the role is distinct, a Roman Pontifex Maximus wasn't head of the state religion with authority to oversee everyone else, but one priest among many with an important symbolic role

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        Nice digits
        Also
        >a Roman Pontifex Maximus wasn't head of the state religion with authority to oversee everyone else
        Wrong
        >but one priest among many with an important symbolic role
        Wrong.

        The Roman Emperor was called Pontifex Maximus & was traditionally (in the Palamite Traditoon) and defacto head of the state religion. The Emperor routinely dictated (directly or indirectly) Church Councils and leadership. In Byzantium. the Emperor would change he could and usually would boot out the Patriarch and place his own man on the seat. It was called Caeseropapism for a reason.
        If you are referring to Pagan Rome then yes it’s unsurprising that non-pagan Rome might have limited commonalities with Pagan Rome.

  5. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    What's hilarious is that like 99% of Church teachings is not infallible. The goddamned Trinity itself isn't even considered infallible.

  6. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Before I go any further, I want to make sure that you understand what papal infallibility is, and more importantly, is not.

    It is:

    Usually (read 99.9999999% of the time) exercised only in concert with the rest of the bishops

    Can only be on matters of faith and morals.

    Is necessary to ensure that the faith we believe in is the faith of Christ. How could we have faith in Christ if we don't know for 100% sure we have His teachings, unchanged, and inerrant from the beginning of time.

    It is NOT:

    The ability of the pope to say whatever he wants.

    Applicable, except on those rare occasions when it is declared that the Pope is speaking infallibly. It's happened like 5 times ever, in 2000 years of popes.

    And this dogma did not become official until the 1800's

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      The church never officially defines doctrine, until someone starts claiming things contrary to teaching. The number of sacraments wasn't officially set at 7 until the 1500's, even though 7 was the widely recognized number for centuries.

      So why do we need an infallible Pope as head and why should his voice reigns over other bishops from West to East?

      He is the Vicar of Christ. A placeholder, a keeper of the keys. He has no power not given to him from Christ. It's almost by definition that the Church's teachings are infallible. What would be the point of all this if they were fallible? How could we know what truth is?

      Further, part of the pope's job is to ensure the bishops don't go off the rails. At multiple points in history, there have been a significant number of unfaithful bishops trying to change church doctrine. The only thing that stopped them, was the Holy Spirit, speaking through the pope.

      Last, the infallibility and primacy of the pope over other bishops is actually scriptural. In Acts, Peter speaks definitively on the need for circumcision to be saved, and everyone falls silent, after having debated it for weeks. Why? They knew Peter had this ability from the beginning.

      I hope that explains things. Please feel free to ask more questions if you need.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      >How could we have faith in Christ if we don't know for 100% sure we have His teachings, unchanged, and inerrant from the beginning of time.
      Faith is believing in things you don't know for certainty. If you knew 100% it wouldn't be faith.

  7. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    You have chairs in your house?

  8. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    I think the point is that if the pope makes some kind of ceremonial change ex "cathedra" to the mass or set of saint holy days you are supposed to just accept it instead of fighting him every step of the way.

  9. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Name three "ex cathedra" teachings. I'll wait. (Protip: You can't.)

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *