exsert from Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy AFR talk by F.A.S. Damick
Orthodoxy and Roman Catholic Differences - Part 1
(3:52) "Roman numeral number two, letter A, The Development of Doctrine.
Roman Catholic Doctrine develops, such in a way that new doctrines appear which are absent in previous centuries. Because the Roman Catholic faith is not 'backwards compatible', to borrow a computing term, that means that a good Catholic from 200 years ago, could be in danger of excommunication were he alive today. As an example, papal infallibility was denied by many Catholics including bishops, until the official definition of the dogma in 1870, they all remained good Catholics before 1870, now they would be excommunicated.
(19:56) second, Saint Paul, our patron, withstood Saint Peter, to his face, over Peter's temporary acceptance of the Judaising heresy. Gal 2:12 At the council in Jerusalem, which decided this matter, it was the local Bishop, James, not Peter, who spoke for the apostolic assembly. Peter's personal authority as the supposed first pope, was nowhere appealed to, nowhere. In fact, Peter, was in the wrong.
(25:33) Papal infallibility. This is the teaching that the pope is infallible in questions of faith and morals when speaking ex cathedra, which means, from the throne and always has, always has been, since Saint Peter. From Vatican I, which defines this dogman in 1870.
"This seed(?) of Saint Peter, always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Saviour to the prince of his disciples. This gift of truth and never failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this seed(?), so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all. 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 by blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine redeemer willed his church to enjoy, in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, since definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not by the consent of the church, irreformable. So then, should anyone, God forbid, which have the temerity to reject this definition of ours, let him be a nathama."
Pretty clear, pretty clear, umm, particularly note the phrase, "not by consent of the church" (repeats the quote) This is a power the pope enjoys, of himself. Doesn't have to ask anyone permission or get anyones approval.
Here are some historical problems and Orthodox objections to this doctrine. First, this is a practical problem, there is no single agreed upon list of infallible statements made by the pope. Thus rendering this dogma almost useless in actual practise. There is no official formula which all Roman Catholics agree, indicates an infallible ex cathedra statement. Saint Peter, we mentioned this, was rebuked by Saint Paul for being a Judaiser, so if the first pope, er, fell into heresy, Then where was his infallibility?"
(the question marks in bracks are mine because i couldn't make out what the word he was saying)
My confused parts are this
Ok i picked out these parts of the talk because he is basically saying that before 1870 the Pope could make mistakes and after, because of the doctrine changes or dogma definitions, w/eva, the Pope was only infallible when he was speaking from his position in his office as Pope yeah?? So when Andrew says that Peter got it wrong and Paul was in his face about it, Peter was just being himself and socially not mixing or eating with the Gentiles when the Jews was around (thas what i understand anyways) Peter wasn't in his office making official statements, so i don't think this is a fair point. The Pope is only infallible when he is in a certain position. Not just when hes hanging out being a bloke.