Scotus writes that "I believe the statement of the good Sister had more to due [sic] with the requirement to believe than the truth of the matter."
But are these two ideas really separable? Who could possibly require us to believe something that is not true? [The like of Hitler and Stalin could make such a requirement, but surely not the Church.]
Incognitus

:rolleyes: Of course they are separable, as Scotus had already indicated. A proposition, appropriately crafted, is either true or false. The church may or may not, however, adopt a position on the truth or falseness of the proposition. Moreover, the church may or may not take a position of the necessity of adhering to that truth or falseness of that proposition in the working out of salvation.

While 1+1=2, I don't imagine that the church has considered taking a position on this matter, in particular, on its significance for salvation.

Yes they are in fact seperate.

There are many truths in life. Some are necessary for our Salvation, others are not.

The Assumption\Dormition of Mary is a long recognized Truth in Sacred Tradition. The Pope declared that a belief in that Truth was a requirement for Salvation.

I'm sure the Church recognized a date of 1066 as the Norman invastion of England, but by no means holds that belief in such a truth is essential to our Soul's eternal wellbeing.

In each case, the Church does not teach falsehood; She only indentifies which Truths are required to be accepted by all Catholics for the sake of our Souls, and which might be legitimately debated.

My point is not that some truths are not necessary for salvation - Scripture scholars are still arguing, for example, about the Johannine Comma. My point rather is that the idea of claiming that one must believe something, regardless of whether the given proposition is true or false, is an impossible question for the Church - if a proposition is false, the Church may not require us to believe it. Or as Galileo is thought to have said, e pur si muove! Incognitus

From an Orthodox perspective, infallibility belongs solely to the Church and the life of the Church. Orthodoxy ecclesiology does not allow a single Church official acting in any capacity to speak absolutely for the entirety of the Church other than that which has already been spoken absolutely by the Church in the life of the Church.

This is an overly simplistic and nebulous explanation, as is required by these types of forums. I would suggest reading "The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church" by Vladimir Lossky and, of course, volumes 1 and 2 of Pelikan's "The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine".

One of my problems with infallibility is in the codification of the immaculate conception of the Theotokos. It codifies the Augustinian view of original sin at the expense of the rest of the Church Fathers. If that's what the West wants to do that's fine. They seem to like the "one man" idea. As long as the Pope doesn't contradict the life of the Church, I'm with the Pope. When it comes to the Church vs. the Pope, I think I'll go ahead and stick with the Church.

Of course most people here will tell you there is no (and cannot be) a Pope vs. the Church. Once again, I'd read volumes 1 and 2 of Pelikan's "The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine". See for yourself if there has ever been a pope who has taught and argued a doctrine not accepted now by the Roman Church.

No such claim is made by the church. Or by sister Euthanasia.

This perspective is often argued in polemics but it is very difficult, at the very least, to support this case on the basis of actual documents of the Catholic Church.

It would be nice to be careful about "taught and argued" as opinion versus pronounced as binding. Otherwise were slip seamlessly into polemics. If you want to stick "with the church", how will you identify it? What is the church? (For example, what is the teaching of the "church" vs. the "Pope" on artificial birth control?) Is there more here than private judgment, carefully packaged to be conveniently reasonable?

Sister Euthanasia?

At what age did she repose, and what was the supposed "cause of death?"

Logos Teen

Garret:

Two t's in my name, Daniell.

I thought it was funny too, for what it's worth.

Logos Teen

Sorry, Garrettt. [there, I made up for my omission...]

Infallibility belongs to the Church and the life of the Church. This infallibility is by far exercised in the Petrine ministry of the Bishop Rome.

Now my questions are:
1. How does one stop the idea of episcopal consensus with regard to matters of faith and truth from degenerating into a matter of democratic votes?

2. What happens if the episcopate itself is divided on an issue?

3. Is there not a "first" teacher among the teachers of the Church (the bishops) who must take responsibility for the authenticity of the bishops' teaching as a whole?

The Holy Spirit has made the episcopal council a perpetual substitute for the apostles, just as Moses made the gathering of Levites and judges a continuing institution to deal with differences among the Israelites after his own time. Within the parameters of the institution of the councils, the Bishop of Rome, as the Successor of Peter, administers the conciliar deliberations and confirms the orthodoxy of his brother bishops. The ministry of the Successor of Peter, and consequently the charism which enables this ministry to occur, is to confirm the orthodox faith by guaranteeing the authentic conciliarity of the confession of catholic Christians.

I wasn't discussing what was taught and argued by the Church. I was discussing what was taught, professed and believed by the Church. I'm not trying to pull anything into "mere polemics."

Concerning the Immaculate Conception of Mary and the way it is taught by Rome, it codifies the Augustinian view because it is totally unecessary unless one adheres to the Augustinian view. In other words, the documents don't specifically state this requirement although it is a required assumption for the proposition, as it has been stated by Rome, to be true (that's why it's called an assumption and not an expostulation). Since the Roman Church requires that ALL catholics of whatever church sui juris to believe the Immaculate Conception of Mary to be true the way it is taught by Rome, they are requiring all the churches to assume the Augustinian view of original sin.

Because the church is bound by what it was taught by Christ, the Holy Disciples and Apostles, the Church Fathers and the life of the Church. If anyone (and I mean anyone with any title) believes and teaches something that is against these, they (or at least their teaching) will be condemned by the Church. That was guaranteed by Christ Himself.

Further, how did they stop it in the past? Review the Seven Ecumenical Councils and see what role the Pope had and did not have in them. Did the Pope show up for all of them? Did the sitting Pope always agree with them?

See the Seven Ecumenical Councils. The episcopate was divided in all of them. Once again, I think Pelikan's discussions are the most descriptive and least polemic. Read it and see what DID happen. Why the need to enter into a "whatif" debate, as if there was not history of life of the Church until the question was posed?

Of course. The First Teacher is the Holy Spirit who leads and directs the Church.

Want to have some fun? What does "ex cathedra" mean? Ask twenty Roman theologians and get twenty answers. Okay, maybe five.

What happens when one pope makes a statement that sounds a lot like a statement pronounced "ex cathedra" and another contradicts it, say something discussed in this form ad nauseam like Pope Leo III and the filioque? Which one was right? If Pope Leo wasn't speaking ex cathedra, when IS a pope speaking ex cathedra? What happens if a pope speaks ex cathedra and it is against one of the ecumenical councils?

Having myself found no Scriptural/Patristic support for the doctrine, that would explain why I now attend an Orthodox parish and will be baptized with in the next 6 months.

In Christ
Daniel

What "Augustinian view"? That of the reformers, or that of the Catholic Church? How is it that either view would make a dogmatic pronouncement on this matter "necessary". What are your criteria of "necessary", in general? How would they apply in terms of the title "Theotokos"? Thease are questions posed on previous threads on this topic.

You need to be more specific about what is assumed. If you simply mean that OS entails consequences apart from mortality, I agree. Such a view is found widely in Orthodox catechisms on-line that I have linked to in previous threads. The representation has also been made here that an acceptable Orthodox position is that OS entails mortality alone. Personally, I am leery of the interpolation of "alone" that this view requires (shades of Luther), but, obviously I am in no position to contest its Orthodoxy or lack thereof. Then again, who is?