| 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 (2,403 Views) | |
| Rose of York | Tuesday, 2. October 2012, 11:01 Post #151 |
![]()
Administrator
|
Can the Pope be in error when he teaches in communion with the bishops? |
|
Keep the Faith! | |
![]() |
|
| Gerard | Tuesday, 2. October 2012, 11:11 Post #152 |
|
I have read many articles that say the final test of whether a statement was infallible or not is whether it is accepted by the whole church. Cardinal Newman seemed to say this. And theologians and others debate this point endlessly. There seems to be some consensus that infallibility is claimed very, very rarely indeed. Often stated that only twice since the First Vatican Council. Gerry |
| "The institutional and charismatic aspects are quasi coessential to the Church's constitution" (Pope John Paul II, 1998). | |
![]() |
|
| Penfold | Tuesday, 2. October 2012, 11:56 Post #153 |
![]()
|
The infallibility of the Church and of the Pope is not wrapped up in a mysteriously surrounded
No one claims that the pope cannot make mistakes or that the church is not capable of error, what the doctrine of infallibility states is that such error can not be made in relation to Doctrinal teaching on Faith and Morals. The simple truth is that all you and others complain about Gerry, such as the crusades, are not and never have been Doctrine of the Church. I have tried, unsuccessfully, several times in this forum to explain that their is a difference between Doctrine and customs and Doctrine and tradition, but at every turn been thwarted by the obtuse and ignorant who claim that they Know better and ignoring the evidence press on with to champion popular myth and legend. Well as I have done before on this thread Gerry I am tempted to do so again but I shall throw one last thought into the mix. I do not have all the answers but I trust those who have spent a lifetime studying and exploring the scriptures and the doctrines of the church. In my limited way with my limited ability I choose to accept their distilled wisdom rather than that of others and in essence that means I trust the church. I am not blind to the faults of individuals within the church but I am willing to forgive the faults as one day I hope to be forgiven. Infallibility is a guarantee that what the Pope and the Church protect is the Truth. What is truth is something you may wish to discuss for what is true in one generation may not be true in another however that does not mean that either generation is in error, for example: If in 1570 a person said that they could fly to London from Rome in less than an hour they would have been accused of an untruth, however today with the assistance of a jet aircraft it is true, but the same basic premiss also remains true, the person needed the assistance of a machine and without a jet aircraft it is still true to say that a person can not fly from Rome to London. When in 1250 a person claimed they could cure a person of ailments by the application of a poultice made of rotting weeds they would have been accused of lying but today a preparation made from the distillation of chemicals produced by those same rotting plants might well cure a person of certain ailments. What is important is that the guardians of Truth the church are bound in time and space like all of us. If told a person would rise from the dead you would have said, no that is not possible and yet Jesus rose from the dead. In faith there are things one comes to understand that without faith make no sense at all. What is truth... understand that and well Infallibility is not too hard to grasp. I would also suggest that to understand truth you must first surrender yourself to... Edited by Penfold, Tuesday, 2. October 2012, 11:59.
|
![]() |
|
| Gerard | Tuesday, 2. October 2012, 14:09 Post #154 |
|
You are correct Penfold. I will not be convinced. No matter how much you insult me or others who say things similar to me. There are different levels of authority, encyclicals do not carrry the same authority as, say, a dogmatic constitution. There are doctrines which are dogmas and doctrines which are not dogmas. And teachings (docrines) change over time. Indeed this is what the trads object to - the changing of the teachings. You anticipate some of my objections when you say that what is true in one generation need not be true in another. But changes, lets say in Biblical interpretation and the methods of Biblical interpretation have gone from being forbidden (in papal encyclicals) to being encouraged (in papal encyclicals). They were changed because more and more catholic scholars and leaders took up and promoted the forbiden methods. During this time the teaching was one thing and the practioners were doing what was forbidden. And the forbidden thing won out. Invariably, the popes hang on to the old ways for too long. But, then, I am not talking about Dogma but about what the popes are teaching about, say, Biblical criticism. If you were claiming infallibility for dogmas we would not be disagreeing. It is the claim for infallibility for all doctrines that I cant agree with. Gerry Edited by Gerard, Tuesday, 2. October 2012, 15:43.
|
| "The institutional and charismatic aspects are quasi coessential to the Church's constitution" (Pope John Paul II, 1998). | |
![]() |
|
| Penfold | Tuesday, 2. October 2012, 17:41 Post #155 |
![]()
|
You use your dictionary I will use mine but the Doctrine of the Church is free from error. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19730705_mysterium-ecclesiae_en.html to much here to pick out many of the salient points but I will provide one small quote from the text, the third paragraph; Texts emboldened by penfold. Of not it is the Sacred Congregation of for the Doctrine of the Faith, not dogma not teaching or any other word one might find in any dictionary, it is the Doctrine of the Church that is preserved by the Doctrine of Infallibility. again the text emboldened by penfold As I say Gerry you use your dictionary I shall use mine but from what I can see mine is the same as the one being used by the Vatican. |
![]() |
|
| Gerard | Wednesday, 3. October 2012, 15:40 Post #156 |
|
Thanks Penfold, I had not come across the actual wording before and am grateful for your provision of them. As a result of previous discussions I was even of the thought that the pronouncement did not use the phrase "ex-cathedra". Glad to see it did. And so, when he speaks ex-cathedra, infallibility is claimed. Hence when he does not speak ex-cathedra he is not protected by the claim of infallibility. In other words if he speaks or teaches not ex-cathedra (which they all do extensively), he can make mistakes. He can be wrong. Gerry |
| "The institutional and charismatic aspects are quasi coessential to the Church's constitution" (Pope John Paul II, 1998). | |
![]() |
|
| Penfold | Wednesday, 3. October 2012, 18:10 Post #157 |
![]()
|
It is interesting that you only read what you want to see Gerry. The papal infalibility is not confined to his speaking ex cathedra. It should be noted that the Second Vatican Council also calls attention to the Magisterium of the bishops in union with the Roman Pontiff, stressing that they too enjoy the Holy Spirit's assistance when they define a point of faith in conjunction with the Successor of Peter:
And to confirm this and what is of relevance to those who think that Vat II can be ignored because it certain documents were not actually declared ex cathedra they still in some cases enjoy infallibility because they are the product of a proclamation made by a definite act in an ecumenical council, hence my remark in the post in the SSPX thread that cautioned against relying on the doctrines of that or any other ecumenical council, not having been declared ex cathedra, being regarded as other than infallible.
The Second Vatican Council issued 4 CONSTITUTIONS: Dogmatic DEI VERBUM; LUMEN GENTIUM and Pastoral SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM; GAUDIUM ET SPES Edited by Penfold, Wednesday, 3. October 2012, 23:03.
|
![]() |
|
| tomais | Saturday, 6. October 2012, 09:14 Post #158 |
|
Anniversary of Vat 2 discussed on BBC World radio this morning! |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · General Catholic Discussion · Next Topic » |








8:36 PM Jul 11