|
0 members (),
528
guests, and
127
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,524
Posts417,640
Members6,176
| |
Most Online4,112
Mar 25th, 2025
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 151
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 151 |
Nicely played but inconsistent. If Pastor Aeternus is dogma, if belief in papal infallibility is necessary for salvation, then it cannot be waived or dispensed, and those who deny it are material heretics, not merely schismatics. If that is the case, then allowing the Orthodox to receive the Eucharist from Catholic priests is a sacrilege, as is allowing Catholics to receive from Orthodox priests. This is exactly what I've been saying all along, yet, because I'm Orthodox, I am accused of divisiveness and proof-texting. It would also be sacrilege to give the Eucharist to Eastern Catholics denying Pastor Aeternus. Since the Catholic Church allows both, the only logical conclusion is belief in papal infallibility is not essential for salvation, is not a core belief of the Church, but is an area of doctrine peculiar to one particular Church. Actually, there's another possible logical conclusion- that Catholic Church is incoherent.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,125 Likes: 1
Za myr z'wysot ... Member
|
|
Za myr z'wysot ... Member
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,125 Likes: 1 |
Since the Catholic Church allows both, the only logical conclusion is belief in papal infallibility is not essential for salvation, is not a core belief of the Church, but is an area of doctrine peculiar to one particular Church. Actually, there's another possible logical conclusion- that Catholic Church is incoherent. Seraphim, "Incoherency" is the inevitable result of the situation that the RCC found itself in after Vat. II regarding the ecumenical status of the post-schism Western councils, and thus the dogmatic status of their pronouncements. Prior to Vat. II, the official line was simple: since the RC Communion was the Church, it was certainly qualified to hold ecumenical councils and make dogmatic pronouncements. By derogating this position, however slightly, the RCC opened the door to the possibility that maybe those councils really weren't ecumenical, and thus maybe those pronouncements really weren't dogmatic. As silly as this sounds, I don't see any other way they could have proceded, since making an abrupt about-face on matters of such consequence would have undoubtedly induced a new schism, without necessarily healing the old. The only path forward would be to accept a kind of indecisiveness regarding this matter for the time being, and pray for the grace to come to a resolution in the future. Peace, Deacon Richard
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 151
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 151 |
"Incoherency" is the inevitable result of the situation that the RCC found itself in after Vat. II regarding the ecumenical status of the post-schism Western councils, and thus the dogmatic status of their pronouncements. Oh, I do understand why there is incoherence... but that doesn't make it less incoherent. By derogating this position, however slightly, the RCC opened the door to the possibility that maybe those councils really weren't ecumenical, and thus maybe those pronouncements really weren't dogmatic. First of all, there's no evidence that any significant part of the RCC would accept that such a possibility exists. The RCC still teaches these dogmas as they were true and universally binding. Second, if the pronouncements aren't dogmatic, then there is a very serious problem, namely that if these dogmatic pronouncements aren't really dogmatic, they are false and heretical. If papal infallibility is not dogma, it cannot be a theologoumenon- it is plainly false. The doctrine, by its nature, allows for no middle way. As silly as this sounds, I don't see any other way they could have proceded, since making an abrupt about-face on matters of such consequence would have undoubtedly induced a new schism, without necessarily healing the old. Well, the question is: what is true? Is Papal infallibility true or not? If it is false, then rejection of falsehood and respect for the truth should transcend any concerns about schism. The Saints did not hesitate to proclaim truth and condemn heresy, even if it alienated them from the majority.
|
|
|
|
|
