Papal Infallibility Puns

My wife and I are in the process of joining an orthodox church. My wife's family is Catholic and wants to know why we don't just become Catholic. We've already made our decision but I would like to know a bit more so I can explain some of the orthodox views better when they ask questions.

I've been reading up on catholicsm for a few years and I know there are a number of differences. One of them being papal infallibility. I don't want to debate with her family or anything but I would just like a good explanation for myself why the orthodox disagree.

I've tried to read about it online and on YouTube but it seems to be an issue deeply rooted in history. I'm no history buff so it just flies over my head.

Can anyone give me a basic understanding with a fee examples or evidence of why papal infallibility is considered heresy?

Newly discovered information housed in the Vatican shows that the Pope knew specifically that extermination camps existed and the Pope’s advisors told him to pass on the information that it was not real. He did just that. He hid the crimes of the Nazis to the US.

I understand the Pope is human, and just like anyone else can make mistakes. Doesn’t though this HUGE oversight to protect innocent people take a huge bite out of the concept that the Pope is a moral authority, and that he can use his Papal Infallibility to declare the word of God?

I don’t really buy the concept personally that the Vatican’s “neutrality” was a defense mechanism to defend the church or its people by allowing other people to die instead. One person is not more worthy of life over another morally.

Obviously in times of war there are many things at play. Lying about intelligence though seems a line too far.

"The papal church will never relinquish her claim to infallibility. All that she has done in her persecution of those who reject her dogmas she holds to be right; and would she not repeat the same acts, should the opportunity be presented? Let the restraints now imposed by secular governments be removed and Rome be reinstated in her former power, and there would speedily be a revival of her tyranny and persecution. The doctrine that God has committed to the church the right to control the conscience, and to define and punish heresy, is one of the most deeply rooted of papal errors."

From the book The Great Controversy

Hi all. I’ve been looking into Catholicism vs orthodoxy. I think the orthodox position is much more true to the facts of history. I simply do not see a supreme monarchical pope in the first one thousand years of Christianity. I think it’s obvious that some changes happened after the schism. The popes had never before made all rites the same (TLM) or changed them completely (Novus Ordo) or now banned them (Francis). The church couldn’t have ever functioned like that in the first place, because the communication between Rome and the rest of the churches took way longer. There was no email or cars or planes. I feel that Vatican I has given the Roman church an ultramontanist bent. The pope breathes and half the Catholics are going crazy over it like if he’s infallible at all times. The way Vatican I was expressed makes me really cringe away. Words like “religious submission of mind and will” to the Roman pontiff and to Roman dogma. I don’t understand why such harsh words need to be used. So you might be wondering why I’m even considering the Roman church at all. Well, my boyfriend is a Roman Catholic. And he believes it’s the one true church. If we ever get married and I become orthodox, I think the Orthodox Church even forbids you from praying with a schismatic or heretic. Also my whole family is Protestant. I don’t like the agnostic view the orthodox have about the grace of God outside the EO church. I know for a fact my family has a strong conviction for the Lord. So I am trying to discern the Roman view a bit more before a reject it completely. May I ask, how do eastern Catholics interpret these papal dogmas? For example, supremacy and jurisdiction? I don’t think it’s accurate to say the Roma pope had universal jurisdiction in the early church. There are also no church fathers talking about papal infallibility. It’s hard not to see it as a Roman invention. How do eastern Catholics view infallibility of the pope? Also what about the immaculate conception. I’ve seen here you don’t have to believe in the Latin way of it. Can someone-explain how eastern Catholics believe it? I don’t believe Mary was conceived with the stain of original sin because I don’t believe I was born with it either. I don’t see how the Roman dogma doesn’t require one to believe in their version of original sin. Lastly, what bothers me a lot is the distinction of mortal and venial sins. I don’t believe that one mortal sin can damn you to hell. I believe unrepentant sin is what damns. But

Hey,

I'm Latin American and Liberation Theology is a topic that has been gaining a bit of interest in the (catholic) circles I inhabit. However, it is my understanding that either John Paul II or Benedict XVI declared it a heresy or something to that effect. But many of the Liberation Theologians are still alive and writing. How can they go against the pope? Am I missing something in the definition of papal infallibility?

Another commentor in the /r/AskBibleScholars sub said that liberation theology was critiqued, not declared heretical, and that papal infallibility only applies to certain kinds of teaching from the Pope. Can anyone explain what were the main criticisms? And what teachings do the infallibility applies to?

Thanks!

>Whatever has been, or shall be decided in [the] future by the supreme Roman Pontiffs in matters of faith or morals, against the rising errors, and the pernicious doctrine of Catholics as well as of Heretics and Schismatics down to our times . . . we command that it be observed by every one in all its integrity and inviolableness.

Taken from here.

I'm a former Anglican now Catholic, but I can't wrap my head around the pope. Any honest reading of church history shows that he gradually increased his power and that the other churches in the east had always rejected this, that instead of creating unity the pope's authority only split the church. I don't believe he's infallible and I never have( i know there's a bunch of qualifications and not everything he says is de facto true).

In truth, I converted to catholicism because I found a love for the real presence and an interest in the early church, not to mention the wonderful community i found, but I never accepted papal authority and I wonder then if I'm only a half catholic since the infallibility of the pope is a dogma

Hi,

I am an Orthodox Christian discerning crossing the Tiber but I am having a lot of trouble with what seems like a lack of Papal Infallibility in the early church and was wondering what you guys thought or had to say that might help me. Thanks and God bless!