| We hope you enjoy your visit! You're currently viewing Catholic CyberForum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our online cyberparish, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! Messages posted to this board must be polite and free of abuse, personal attacks, blasphemy, racism, threats, harrassment, and crude or sexually-explicit language. If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Papal Infallibility; and Infallibility of the Church | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Monday, 21. January 2008, 23:07 (2,402 Views) | |
| Rose of York | Monday, 21. January 2008, 23:07 Post #1 |
![]()
Administrator
|
The first dogma Holy Mother Church declared to be infallible was that of Papal Infallibility. We all know of the misconception amongst protestants and atheists, that the Popes claim that every single thing they say is true, even if they say rain is not wet, or hot coals are cold, not hot. We Catholics can tell people, the Pope only claims infallibility when he speaks to the Church, in his capacity as Pope (Bishop of Rome) on matters of faith and morals. I would dearly love to know why some doctrines are declared infallibly and many others are not. Is the teaching in every encyclical to be treated as infallible? A convert has to assent to the teachings in the Creed, none of them have been declared formally as infallible, though obviously I accept them to be true. Quotation from another discussion:
|
|
Keep the Faith! | |
![]() |
|
| Paduan | Tuesday, 22. January 2008, 02:00 Post #2 |
|
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm has some helpful explanation, albeit somewhat long-winded. |
| Agnus Dei, qui tollis peccata mundi, miserere nobis. | |
![]() |
|
| Rose of York | Tuesday, 22. January 2008, 02:13 Post #3 |
![]()
Administrator
|
Thanks Paduan. That document is the best I have come across for explaining all aspects of infallibility. It is indeed long, but well worth reading. I think we could end up with a really good discussion, based on the article (when we are all wide awake :D ) |
|
Keep the Faith! | |
![]() |
|
| Gerard | Tuesday, 22. January 2008, 10:20 Post #4 |
|
If the pope says he is infallible, and actually is infallible, then he is infallible. If the pope says he is infallible and actually he is not infallible then he is not infallible and a later pope can say we made a mistake, popes are not infallible. Gerry |
| "The institutional and charismatic aspects are quasi coessential to the Church's constitution" (Pope John Paul II, 1998). | |
![]() |
|
| Annabelle | Tuesday, 22. January 2008, 11:34 Post #5 |
|
And when has the Church ever admitted to getting anything wrong Gerard......???? :rolleyes: That said, I thought yours was a masterly summary! |
![]() |
|
| Gerard | Tuesday, 22. January 2008, 12:17 Post #6 |
|
Annabell, First a word of caution. The Pope and the Church does have teaching authority even when it is not infallible. It is obviously guided by the Holy Spirit. Otherwise how can one explain the survival of good teaching even during the reign of bad popes such as the Borgias? The Church seems to find it very difficult to admit its mistakes and this is most unfortunate. I heard a commentator say recently that we lack the Jewish "day of atonement" when everyone admits thier sins including the leaders. But in recent years it has admitted mistakes. Pope John Paul The Great apologised for a variety of mistakes including historical attitudes to Jews, and other acts of violence. he also apologised for the mistakes of the Galileo affair. The Second Vatican Council also said this in the DECREE ON ECUMENISM - UNITATIS REDINTEGRATIO:
Where it is clearly saying that both sides were to blame in the Reformation. Gerry |
| "The institutional and charismatic aspects are quasi coessential to the Church's constitution" (Pope John Paul II, 1998). | |
![]() |
|
| Michaeljohn | Tuesday, 22. January 2008, 13:10 Post #7 |
|
Gerry, the Council of Trent was at least an implicit recognition that the Church was partly to blame for the Reformation. I read Chaucer at school and the good Brothers made no bones of the fact that the sale of indulgences was being heavily criticised 300 years before the Reformation. We didn't need to wait for the Decree on Ecumenism. Pope John Paul II fell into the late 20th Century touchie-feelie trap of apologising for things that were not his fault, a lesson he seems to have learned from Tony Blair (or perhaps the other way round). Applying 20-20 hindsight (a gift that most of us have) is not productive and traps you into situations you are better steering clear of. "If we'd known then what we know now we would have done it differently" is fair enough but since we didn't and in many cases there is no way we could have then apologies are irrelevant. |
![]() |
|
| Gerard | Tuesday, 22. January 2008, 13:21 Post #8 |
|
Michaeljohn, I am encourageed by your posting. I find too many catholics who think the Church is perfect and cannot make a mistake. It is so rare for it to say it made a mistake that we both struggle to find examples. You use an "implicit" example and I used an apology. I agree a simple statement along the lines of we wuz wrong would suffice. Gerry |
| "The institutional and charismatic aspects are quasi coessential to the Church's constitution" (Pope John Paul II, 1998). | |
![]() |
|
| Clare | Tuesday, 22. January 2008, 18:47 Post #9 |
|
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
|
Let's not forget this one:
Dominicae Cenae |
|
S.A.G. Motes 'n' Beams blog Join in the Fun Trivia Quiz! | |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Tuesday, 22. January 2008, 22:10 Post #10 |
|
Deleted User
|
Gerry's explanation is brilliant . Why was it considered necessary to proclaim the doctrine of infallibility? What purpose was served? John |
|
|
| Quicunque vult | Tuesday, 22. January 2008, 23:33 Post #11 |
|
It was the reaffirmation of papal authority already inherent in Our Lord's commission to St Peter, made explicitly in response to 19th Century liberal challenges to the authority of the Church. Generally speaking, dogmas only need to be defined when heresy arises. When everyone is agreed on the teaching of the Church, there is no need. QV |
![]() |
|
| Michaeljohn | Wednesday, 23. January 2008, 15:54 Post #12 |
|
And in spite of various usually fairly good-natured disagreements on what are mainly manifestations of church teaching rather than dogma we all seem to agree on what church teaching is. And I suspect that when the situation gets serious enough, whether it be on various aspects of sexual mores or the sanctity of life or whatever then the Pope (this one, next one, one after) will take the appropriate steps. 19th century liberalism and its bastard offspring Modernism were a direct attack on fundamental Catholic beliefs. Married couples using artificial contraception are (as Don Camillo put it) like two cockroaches trying to bring down St Peter's by gnawing away at the columns. While they need good pastoral care they are no threat to the fundamental structure of the Church. [My understanding, by the way, is that Humanae Vitae was not an infallible pronouncement and for several very practical reasons. If you read between the lines of what Paul VI actually said it becomes clearer that the use of chemical contraception was looked at as being of a different order from the use of the assorted "barrier" methods, hence the reason for the Commission in the first place. Those who were in favour of allowing it argued their case badly and Paul (rightly) kicked the matter into the long grass maintaining (as he was obliged to do) the status quo.] |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Wednesday, 23. January 2008, 22:33 Post #13 |
|
Deleted User
|
It seems then from those explanations that the doctrine was proclaimed to try to quash dissent. Why couldn't the Church rely on the clarity of its arguments? And I thought Catholics in those days could be relied upon to follow Church teachings without this dictatorial approach? Were they "picking and mixing"? I think sometimes we lack any ability to see how ridiculous this type of ruling must seem to those outside the Church. We may say we don't care about them but of course we not only should but we must. In the 19th century, some Church teachings were attacked. We defended them. The argument went back and forward. And then we said "Aha. there can be no further argument because from now on in these circumstances the Pope is infallible ". Oh, that's all right then. John |
|
|
| Rose of York | Wednesday, 23. January 2008, 23:19 Post #14 |
![]()
Administrator
|
If I doubted something that I felt free to doubt or disbelieve (Limbo could be an example for some) and the Pope pronounced it as infallible teaching, that would make me sit up and think, and look into the reason for the teaching. |
|
Keep the Faith! | |
![]() |
|
| MickCook | Wednesday, 23. January 2008, 23:48 Post #15 |
![]()
|
Papal infallibility refers to when he speaks ex cathedra (from the Chair) -- that is, when in the exercise of his office as pastor. Infallibility is not attributed to every doctrinal act or teaching of the pope but only to his ex cathedra teaching.
Not quite as clear as mud, but the simple version is that the Pope rarely speaks ex cathedra (the last time was in 1950). This is down to Jesus saying to Peter, "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loose in heaven." (see personal charisma above). |
|
:) Mick The Cook Companies | |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · General Catholic Discussion · Next Topic » |








8:36 PM Jul 11