Do Anglicans believe that Christ founded the Church on Peter?

[VARC]

In Thomas Aquinas time slavery was considered a definite sin.

That idea seems to be lost on St Thomas himself…

“Slavery among men is natural, for some are naturally slaves according to the Philosopher (Polit. i, 2). Now ‘slavery belongs to the right of nations,’ as Isidore states (Etym. v, 4). Therefore the right of nations is a natural right.”

“It belongs to justice to render to each one his right, the distinction between individuals being presupposed: for if a man gives himself his due, this is not strictly called ‘just.’ And since what belongs to the son is his father’s, and what belongs to the slave is his master’s, it follows that properly speaking there is not justice of father to son, or of master to slave.”

Source: Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, “On Justice”

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Forgot to respond to this.

This a whitewashing of history. Popes didn’t give “implicit” approval of slavery. They were very explicit in their approval of the institution at times.

“Slavery itself, considered as such in its essential nature, is not at all contrary to the natural and divine law, and there can be several just titles of slavery and these are referred to by approved theologians and commentators of the sacred canons… It is not contrary to the natural and divine law for a slave to be sold, bought, exchanged or given”.
Pius IX (Instruction 20 June 1866 AD).

“ “We grant you [Kings of Spain and Portugal] by these present documents, with our Apostolic Authority, full and free permission to invade, search out, capture, and subjugate the Saracens and pagans and any other unbelievers and enemies of Christ wherever they may be, as well as their kingdoms, duchies, counties, principalities, and other property …] and to reduce their persons into perpetual slavery.”**1452 **by Pope Nicholas V

This proves that papal attitudes towards slavery have been a lot more than “implicit approval” and that fact doesn’t bode well for the Pope’s infallibility in teaching morality.

If one is to argue the slavery question and use it to determine infallibility or moral qualifications, then the entire Bible itself will have to be thrown out. Therefore this is fallacious reasoning. We see slavery, unfortunately, throughout the scriptures into Jesus’s day and into the contemporary world of Paul and Philemon, etc. Paul does not condemn slavery either. So if the pope is a moral failure in this regard, one would have to include the entire Bible and the apostles, etc. as moral failures as well. I’m not about to do that.

 

[BHTech]

We will have to agree to disagree about the papacy I believe we have both made about as much progress as we are going to make in this discussion.

I have to agree with you there.

There is a third option

1. Neither the CC nor Protestantism is right about everything

You are fallaciously begging the question that Jesus or scripture taught that a single bishop would always be right. You cannot use that opinion as proof in order to rule out the third possibility . That is a logical fallacy.

Incorrect. You are calling Jesus christ a liar because by your assumption there will be times in history when the Holy spirit will be twiddling his thumbs wondering whenever will these stupid people get it right. No wonder you are in TEC.

]While I certainly believe that Christ put leaders in charge of the church, I don’t believe he appointed a single leader to rule the church. On that basis, it is not unreasonable to conclude that individual leaders can err from time to time, including the Roman bishop.

We will have to disagree here.

Blessings

BHTech

 

[BHTech]

Forgot to respond to this.

This a whitewashing of history. Popes didn’t give “implicit” approval of slavery. They were very explicit in their approval of the institution at times.

“Slavery itself, considered as such in its essential nature, is not at all contrary to the natural and divine law, and there can be several just titles of slavery and these are referred to by approved theologians and commentators of the sacred canons… It is not contrary to the natural and divine law for a slave to be sold, bought, exchanged or given”.
Pius IX (Instruction 20 June 1866 AD).

“ “We grant you [Kings of Spain and Portugal] by these present documents, with our Apostolic Authority, full and free permission to invade, search out, capture, and subjugate the Saracens and pagans and any other unbelievers and enemies of Christ wherever they may be, as well as their kingdoms, duchies, counties, principalities, and other property …] and to reduce their persons into perpetual slavery.”**1452 **by Pope Nicholas V

This proves that papal attitudes towards slavery have been a lot more than “implicit approval” and that fact doesn’t bode well for the Pope’s infallibility in teaching morality.

No its not whitewashing history. I stated some Popes gave implicit approval but far more condemned it. You seem to conveniently ignore that fact. Perhaps you should read Pope Eugene IV (1431 to 1447), bull, Sicut dudum condemning slavery. You can find a copy at the Vatican web site.

Yes Pope Nicholas V allowed the Portuguese to have non-christians as slaves, but then again St Paul advised the runaway slave (Onesimus) to return to his master but wrote to the master to accept the slave as a brother in Christ. Thus by your argument we would have to throw out Paul teaching and the Bible while we are it. Gurneyhalleck1 makes this same point, so your argument on Papal infallibility is deeply flawed friend. Hey maybe you can suggest to the brass in TEC that they should throw out the letter of Paul to Philemon in the Bible, so you can justify Papal infallibility is wrong.

As for your claims of Pius IX doing the same, I highly dispute it since I can’t find the complete text from which it came.

Here is the point however. Neither Pope made their statement ex-cathedra as doctrine so by the definition of Papal infallibility it does not qualify. Furthermore please don’t confuse laxity with doctrine. St. Paul certainly did not.

God Bless

BHTech

 

[BHTech]

That idea seems to be lost on St Thomas himself…

“Slavery among men is natural, for some are naturally slaves according to the Philosopher (Polit. i, 2). Now ‘slavery belongs to the right of nations,’ as Isidore states (Etym. v, 4). Therefore the right of nations is a natural right.”

“It belongs to justice to render to each one his right, the distinction between individuals being presupposed: for if a man gives himself his due, this is not strictly called ‘just.’ And since what belongs to the son is his father’s, and what belongs to the slave is his master’s, it follows that properly speaking there is not justice of father to son, or of master to slave.”

Source: Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, “On Justice”

Now I know you have lost your marbles friend by quoting without thinking about what you are quoting. In the Summa Theologica, “On Justice”, St. Thomas Aquinas is presenting those two point as OBJECTIONS raised on RIGHTS(Question 57). The first is from Article 3, Objection 2 and the second can be found in Article 4, Objection 1.

St. Thomas Aquinas answers both objections and I urge you to read it carefully next time before posting. To sum up Aquinas view on slavery here is a quote from “The Truth About the Catholic Church and Slavery” by Rodney Stark (Christianity Today) - Not Catholic

Aquinas placed slavery in opposition to natural law, deducing that all “rational creatures” are entitled to justice. Hence he found no natural basis for the enslavement of one person rather than another, “thus removing any possible justification for slavery based on race or religion.” Right reason, not coercion, is the moral basis of authority, for “one man is not by nature ordained to another as an end.”

God Bless

BHTech

 

[VARC]

Incorrect. You are calling Jesus christ a liar because by your assumption there will be times in history when the Holy spirit will be twiddling his thumbs wondering whenever will these stupid people get it right.

Another fallacy. Straw man argument. I never said that the Holy Spirit was “twiddling his thumbs wondering whenever will these stupid people get it right”. I said that the Holy Spirit gradually leads the Church into truth and that He is not subject to your time table.

 

[VARC]

If one is to argue the slavery question and use it to determine infallibility or moral qualifications, then the entire Bible itself will have to be thrown out. Therefore this is fallacious reasoning.

I fail to see the fallacy. Just because you don’t like the conclusion that “he entire Bible itself will have to be thrown” (a conclusion I disagree with) that doesn’t make the argument fallacious. What type of logical fallacy did I commit?
gurneyhalleck1;5608991:

We see slavery, unfortunately, throughout the scriptures into Jesus’s day and into the contemporary world of Paul and Philemon, etc. Paul does not condemn slavery either. So if the pope is a moral failure in this regard, one would have to include the entire Bible and the apostles, etc. as moral failures as well. I’m not about to do that.

I don’t know what you mean by the Bible as a “moral failure” but I suspect that our views on scripture are divergent .

I don’t necessarily believe that Paul was a “moral failure” for not condemning slavery. Slavery was a social and economic reality of his time. The concept of individual and constitutional rights was not developed until much later so I think it would be pretty unfair to label him a moral failure for not being aware of such accepted moral concepts as we know today.

And I think its erroneous to equate Paul’s condoning of slavery with the Pope’s approval and encouragement of slavery.

 

[BHTech]

Another fallacy. Straw man argument. I never said that the Holy Spirit was “twiddling his thumbs wondering whenever will these stupid people get it right”. I said that the Holy Spirit gradually leads the Church into truth and that He is not subject to your time table.

And I respond to you by saying that at no point in time can or will the Holy Spirit allow the universal church to go into doctrinal or teaching error. Therefore one group (that universal church) must have always been right (doctrinal wise) from Pentecost onwards and for sure as heck it ain’t the Anglicans. You have simply proved my point .

God Bless

BHTech

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

gurneyhalleck1;5608991:

If one is to argue the slavery question and use it to determine infallibility or moral qualifications, then the entire Bible itself will have to be thrown out. Therefore this is fallacious reasoning.

I fail to see the fallacy. Just because you don’t like the conclusion that “he entire Bible itself will have to be thrown” (a conclusion I disagree with) that doesn’t make the argument fallacious. What type of logical fallacy did I commit?
My point is simple. When you yourself disagree with something morally and it is clear that the apostles or scriptures are opposed to your opinion, you justify it as the ‘ignorance of the day’ prejudices and cast aside the divine element. Paul speaks often of his divine inspiration and guidance by the Holy Spirit. His words were not just his words, but those of the Spirit. From your vantage point, many of Paul’s opinions were from negative influences, ignorance, and a lack of scientific knowledge rather than actually from God or inspired by God. Maybe, just maybe, God is against homosexuality?? You don’t see to consider that possibility. Perhaps you’re uncomfortable with that reality and it seems hard to stomach. To have to tell these ‘committed’ gay couples that they’re living in sin isn’t a comfortable thing. God calls us out of the comfort zone and talks about He is not of the world; the world is hostile to Christ, always will be. Your opinions tend, in my opinion, to agree with those of the world and be divergent with scripture. How do you determine when Paul’s opinions are of God and when they’re ‘prejudiced’ and "influenced’ by outside negative forces of his contemporaries?

I don’t know what you mean by the Bible as a “moral failure” but I suspect that our views on scripture are divergent .
I’ve had trouble ascertaining your views. You often approach a debate with the “devil’s advocate” angle. When people debate things through and you come up looking on the fringe of liberal postmodern Christianity and far from the deposit of faith, you say these are not your opinions but a devil’s advocate argument on behalf of others. It’s confusing. I’m a pretty straight shooter B]
I don’t necessarily believe that Paul was a “moral failure” for not condemning slavery. Slavery was a social and economic reality of his time. The concept of individual and constitutional rights was not developed until much later so I think it would be pretty unfair to label him a moral failure for not being aware of such accepted moral concepts as we know today.
It seems you’re arguing against yourself with this statement. You imply that all popes of all time should’ve condemned slavery because God would’ve inspired them and guided them to teach it as a moral evil. Yet with Paul you don’t consider him morally weak because he was passive with slavery. You use slavery as a proof against infallibility but defend it with Paul.
And I think its erroneous to equate Paul’s condoning of slavery with the Pope’s approval and encouragement of slavery.
I fail to see why. And I would also question whether the Pope’s statements on slavery were ex cathedra and infallible statements.

 

[VARC]

No its not whitewashing history. I stated some Popes gave implicit approval but far more condemned it.

You did it again. You are whitewashing history by downplaying the Pope’s approval of scripture when you say that his approval was “implicit”.

: capable of being understood from something else though unexpressed : implied b : involved in the nature or essence of something though not revealed, expressed, or developed

His approval was explicit

1 a : fully revealed or expressed without vagueness, implication, or ambiguity : leaving no question as to meaning or intent b : open in the depiction of nudity or sexuality
2 : fully developed or formulated
3 : unambiguous in expression

You use of words like “implicit approval” distorts the reality of history. You know darn well his approval was explicit.

You seem to conveniently ignore that fact. Perhaps you should read Pope Eugene IV (1431 to 1447), bull, Sicut dudum condemning slavery. You can find a copy at the Vatican web site.

I obviously concede that while some popes approved and encouraged slavery other popes condemned it. I stated that such contradictions don’t bode well for the popes moral infallibility.

Yes Pope Nicholas V allowed the Portuguese to have non-christians as slaves, but then again St Paul advised the runaway slave (Onesimus) to return to his master but wrote to the master to accept the slave as a brother in Christ. Thus by your argument we would have to throw out Paul teaching and the Bible while we are it. Hey maybe you can suggest to the brass in TEC that they should throw out the letter of Paul to Philemon in the Bible, so you can justify Papal infallibility is wrong.

You are painting yourself into a corner. It appears that you are asserting that slavery is not gravely immoral because St. Paul approved of it. But the Pope today condemns it as gravely immoral. So which one is it? Is slavery morally acceptable as you assert scripture teaches? Has JPII erred in condemning slavery? Explain.

As for your claims of Pius IX doing the same, I highly dispute it since I can’t find the complete text from which it came.

The citation I provided is not disputed by anybody. It is from an Instruction published by the Holy Office that was signed by the Pope IX in 1866. You refusal to believe it is not based on a reasonable objection to its authenticity. You don’t want to believe it because it casts a reasonable doubt on your beliefs.

Here is the point however. Neither Pope made their statement ex-cathedra as doctrine so by the definition of Papal infallibility it does not qualify. Furthermore please don’t confuse laxity with doctrine. St. Paul certainly did not.

That’s what I was waiting for: an appeal to the ambiguity of PI. So if the Popes teaching on slavery wasn’t infallible, on what basis is the current’s Pope’s teaching on contraception, homosexuality, abortion, stem cell research, women’s ordination, etc, etc considered to be infallible?

Can you please give me a comprehensive list of all infallible papal teaching complete with citations of what Pope, when, and what document?

 

[josie_L]

**Here’s my evidence for the papacy courtesy of Sacred Scripture: **

In Matthew 16 (you knew this was coming) Jesus demands of his apostles who they think he is, and it was Peter who responded first (Peter was always first in knowing the truth, you see this in acts with Ananias and Sapphira and the revelation given to Peter by Jesus about baptizing the Gentiles) through the Father. Jesus replies, “Blessed are you, SImon son of Jonah. . .” Now Jonah in hebrew means “dove” so Peter is the son of the dove, a dove is a symbol of the Holy Spirit, so Peter is a son of the Holy Spirit. Now name changes are really important in scripture as they connote the essence or destiny of the individual, Simon’s name was changed to Peter (the rock) just before he was handed the keys to the kingdom (just like the prime minister Eliakim was given the keys by the King of Israel).

"And I tell you that you are Peter (rock) and on this rock (Peter) I will build my church, and the gates of Hell will not overcome it.

Peter is the rock, the rock is Peter. And whoever should be part of this church (Christ’s church) built on rock the gates of Hell will not prevail. Now the keys that were given to Peter were given to him only (and we know this because just a few chapters after this he gives the autority to loose and bind to the other apostles but without ever giving them the keys which connote a final authority in matters of loosing and binding),

“I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

The keys signify authority to loose and bind in a manner given to the prime minister in the OT.

“I will place on his shoulder (prime minister) the key to the house of David (Jesus was the son of David and the King of Israel); what he opens no one can shut and what he shuts no one can open.”
Isaiah 22

The prime (the first in authority and rank) minister was given the keys (which his fellow ministers were not given of which there were 11) just like Peter (our first Pope). The prime minister was a foreshadowing of the pope’s role just like the Davidic kingdom is a foreshadowing of the Church. The keys enable the pope who is authorized by Christ himself (and guided infallibly by the Holy Spirit) the final say in matters of loosing and binding. God bless.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

That’s what I was waiting for: an appeal to the ambiguity of PI. So if the Popes teaching on slavery wasn’t infallible, on what basis is the current’s Pope’s teaching on contraception, homosexuality, abortion, stem cell research, women’s ordination, etc, etc considered to be infallible?

Can you please give me a comprehensive list of all infallible papal teaching complete with citations of what Pope, when, and what document?

Everyone knows that the two infallibly-declared statements by the RCC are that of the declaration of the assumption of the BVM and the other the immaculate conception of Mary. There is no “list.” Something taught for 2,000 years by the Church consistently in union with the Church is already infallible. Abortion, W.O., homosexuality, etc. have 2,000 years of precedence as defined evil behaviors or teachings. They need no one-time infallible statement as they are a strong and obvious part of the deposit of faith and are understood. Birth control has no precedent as permissible or morally-acceptable for 2,000years until the Lambeth Conference gave it the go-ahead in some cases. I myself have been on the other side of the birth control argument for a long time and still struggle with the Church teaching but 2,000 years of consistent teaching seems infallible enough for most.

 

[VARC]

I started to answer but there are so many assertions in your post that I disagree with that I’ll have to do it later. You seem to be bleeding over to the topic of scripture’s moral authority which is kind of off topic. I’ll just respond to one point

You imply that all popes of all time should’ve condemned slavery because God would’ve inspired them and guided them to teach it as a moral evil

My only point in illustrating the contradictory positions on the popes concerning slavery was to show the problems with holding the belief that the Pope is a morally infallible teacher. You are misrepresenting my intention by asserting that I expect them to condemn slavery. I only expect them to be consistent.

 

[josie_L]

What is the gift of infallibility?

“The dogma of infallibility was formally proclaimed at the First Vatican Council in 1870. There are several requirements for a dogmatic, papal infallible pronouncement: (1) The pronouncement must be made by the lawful successor to Peter. (2) The subject matter must be in the area of faith and morals. (3) The pope must be speaking ex cathedra, that is from the very seat and office of Peter. In this way he must be specifically intending to proclaim a doctrine, binding the entire Church to its assent. If one or more of these elements is missing, there is no infallible pronouncement. Most “examples” of papal “errors” emerge when critics ignore the necessity of these three points. (Madrid, pp. 135-136, Pope Fiction)”

Doctrinal Understanding over Time

“The doctrine is one that developed as the Church got a clearer understanding of the teaching authority of the bishops and the primacy of the Pope. **St. Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage writing about 256 A.D. said, “Would the heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?” Augustine reflected this same Tradition when he said at , “Rome has spoken; the cause is concluded.” **In 433 A.D. Pope Sixtus III declared that assenting to the Bishop of Rome’s decision on matters of faith and morals was as assent to Peter, “who lives in his successors and whose faith does not fail.” Leslie Rumble and Charles M. Carty, the famous radio priests of the 1930’s, declared that: “Before the definition of infallibility in 1870, the Popes did not know they were infallible with the same full certainty of faith as that possessed by later Popes. But they were infallible in fact. The gift of papal infallibility was essential to the Church, not the definition of the gift. You wonder why was it defined only in 1870. But definitions are not given unnecessarily. If no discussion arises on a given point, and no one disputes it, there is no need for a definition. But in the seventeenth century the question of the Pope’s doctrinal authority came more and more to the front, until in 1870, the Vatican Council was asked to settle this question once and for all. The time had come for the Church to know herself fully on this point” (Rumble and Carty, Radio Replies 3: 95).”

 

[VARC]

Everyone knows that the two infallibly-declared statements by the RCC are that of the declaration of the assumption of the BVM and the other the immaculate conception of Mary.

Actually, there are many catholic who disagree with you. They believe that the Popes have made many infallible pronouncements such as the Declarations of the Church Councils and Canon Law.

Something taught for 2,000 years by the Church consistently in union with the Church is already infallible. Abortion, W.O., homosexuality, etc. have 2,000 years of precedence as defined evil behaviors or teachings. They need no one-time infallible statement as they are a strong and obvious part of the deposit of faith and are understood. Birth control has no precedent as permissible or morally-acceptable for 2,000years until the Lambeth Conference gave it the go-ahead in some cases. I myself have been on the other side of the birth control argument for a long time and still struggle with the Church teaching but 2,000 years of consistent teaching seems infallible enough for most.

But apparently not the morality of slavery which you yourself have admitted was taught as morally acceptable from the times of the Bible. But somehow the infallible Pope of today call it gravely immoral. Slavery only scratches the surface of beliefs that were “strong and obvious part of the deposit of faith”. Religious compulsion, anti-semitism, limbo, torture, holy war, shunning of unbelievers, etc, etc. All these things were believed and taught with the same level of authority as the Church’s teaching on contraception and all were sent to the scrap heap. So Rome is only morally infallible until it changes it mind as in the case of slavery.

Gotta go now.

 

[josie_L]

Actually, there are many catholic who disagree with you. They believe that the Popes have made many infallible pronouncements such as the Declarations of the Church Councils and Canon Law.

But apparently not the morality of slavery which you yourself have admitted was taught as morally acceptable from the times of the Bible. But somehow the infallible Pope of today call it gravely immoral. Slavery only scratches the surface of beliefs that were “strong and obvious part of the deposit of faith”. Religious compulsion, anti-semitism, limbo, torture, holy war, shunning of unbelievers, etc, etc. All these things were believed and taught with the same level of authority as the Church’s teaching on contraception and all were sent to the scrap heap. So Rome is only morally infallible until it changes it mind as in the case of slavery.

Gotta go now.

Actually, the Jews never practiced chattel slavery and it was this type of slavery which was condemned by the Church. We know this because God himself saved the Jews from being mere chattel to the Egyptians.

 

[josie_L]

Actually, there are many catholic who disagree with you. They believe that the Popes have made many infallible pronouncements such as the Declarations of the Church Councils and Canon Law.

Varc, please do not speak on behalf of Catholics because you are wrong. The pope has only twice spoken ex-cathedra in pronouncing infallible teachings of the Church.

 

[josie_L]

I just had to put these in (sorry for those of you who don’t like cut and paste):

Irenaeus

“The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome] . . . handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus” (Against Heresies 3:3:3 [A.D. 189]).

Cyprian of Carthage

“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. … ’ [Matt. 16:18]. **On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. . . . If someone [today] does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” **(The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; first edition [A.D. 251]).

“Cornelius was made bishop by the decision of God and of his Christ, by the testimony of almost all the clergy, by the applause of the people then present, by the college of venerable priests and good men, at a time when no one had been made [bishop] before him—when the place of [Pope] Fabian, which is the place of Peter, the dignity of the sacerdotal chair, was vacant. Since it has been occupied both at the will of God and with the ratified consent of all of us, whoever now wishes to become bishop must do so outside. For he cannot have ecclesiastical rank who does not hold to the unity of the Church” (Letters 55:[52]):8 [A.D. 253]).

"With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and b.asphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" (ibid., 59:14).

Jerome

“[Pope] Stephen . . . was the blessed Peter’s twenty-second successor in the See of Rome” (Against the Luciferians 23 [A.D. 383]).

“Clement, of whom the apostle Paul writing to the Philippians says ‘With Clement and others of my fellow-workers whose names are written in the book of life,’ the fourth bishop of Rome after Peter, if indeed the second was Linus and the third Anacletus, although most of the Latins think that Clement was second after the apostle” (Lives of Illustrious Men 15 [A.D. 396]).

"Since the East, shattered as it is by the long-standing feuds, subsisting between its peoples, is bit by bit tearing into shreds the seamless vest of the Lord . . . I think it my duty to consult the chair of Peter, and to turn to a church [Rome] whose faith has been praised by Paul [Rom. 1:8]. I appeal for spiritual food to the church whence I have received the garb of Christ. . . . Evil children have squandered their patrimony; you alone keep your heritage intact" (Letters 15:1 [A.D. 396]).

"I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but your blessedness [Pope Damasus I], that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock on which the Church has been built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane. Anyone who is not in the ark of Noah will perish when the flood prevails" (ibid., 15:2).

catholic.com/library/Peter_Successors.asp

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Varc, please do not speak on behalf of Catholics because you are wrong. The pope has only twice spoken ex-cathedra in pronouncing infallible teachings of the Church.

That has always been my understanding as well, Josie. It seems that those who try to poke holes in infallibility and the papacy never have a counter as to what the truth really is. It’s the classic, “your plan is stupid,” to which one replies, “ok then, what’s your plan?” “well I never had one but it sure would be better than yours if I had it!”

There are so many who seek to disprove the papacy’s claims but have no real idea of what the “gates of hell will not prevail against my Church” really means. They have these vague ideas that the Church will get it right just on main issues that ‘matter’ and that churches can make mistakes for centuries and in the ‘end’ it’ll all come out right, etc.

I think a person needs to look at the current face of the Church, the catechism, and look at where they are out of line with the ancient Church. I see no such example. On abortion, the culture of death, marriage, divorce, medical ethics, the Eucharist, poverty, charity, ecclesiology, the saints, and a whole host of issues the Church is consistent with the deposit of faith. The very fact that the Church is on the OTHER side of most secular values already points to their legitimacy IMO. The rest of Church history shows the papacy on the right side of the issues throughout the last 2,000 years as well.

Those who would hold up Cyprian as an example of an anti-Stephen (pope) character or Firmillian are quick to NOT mention that Stephen was right in the end, Cyprian was not. But I digress…

 

[BHTech]

Actually, there are many catholic who disagree with you. They believe that the Popes have made many infallible pronouncements such as the Declarations of the Church Councils and Canon Law.

So what? Many Anglicans disagree with TECs stance on homosexuality and may even disagree with some of your views. The Catholic church has always had dissenters. Eh…that’s how heresies start! If you are not for Christ you are against him.

You use of words like “implicit approval” distorts the reality of history. You know darn well his approval was explicit.

Those few Popes who have given implicit approval to slavery will have to answer for their actions if that is the case. That however, does not invalidate Papal infallibility as it was not dogmatic and ex-cathedra.

I obviously concede that while some popes approved and encouraged slavery other popes condemned it. I stated that such contradictions don’t bode well for the popes moral infallibility.

Now there is moral infallibility? Friend that does not exist, but you are right to say their actions are disturbing.

You are painting yourself into a corner. It appears that you are asserting that slavery is not gravely immoral because St. Paul approved of it. But the Pope today condemns it as gravely immoral. So which one is it? Is slavery morally acceptable as you assert scripture teaches? Has JPII erred in condemning slavery? Explain.

I disagree with your opening line above. Friend let us use common sense here please. Did not Jesus say that "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning"? Did not Paul send Onesimus back to Philemon and he was a slave but he asked him to treat him properly? Did not Jesus say one man-one woman was God’s plan, but the Hebrews had multiple wives? The truth never changed in time. Divorce was never part of God’s plan NOR was multiple wives NOR was slavery as the latter violates the dignity of the human person, made in the image and likeness of God. Did not Jesus come to fulfill the law and NOT abolish it? Why is that so hard to understand?

The citation I provided is not disputed by anybody. It is from an Instruction published by the Holy Office that was signed by the Pope IX in 1866. You refusal to believe it is not based on a reasonable objection to its authenticity. You don’t want to believe it because it casts a reasonable doubt on your beliefs.

If what you claim is correct please supply me with a URL link from the Holy Office to its authenticity. The onus is on you to prove it. I have no quams with Nicholas V, but Pius IX you need to produce.

That’s what I was waiting for: an appeal to the ambiguity of PI. So if the Popes teaching on slavery wasn’t infallible, on what basis is the current’s Pope’s teaching on contraception, homosexuality, abortion, stem cell research, women’s ordination, etc, etc considered to be infallible?

I was about to respond when I noticed that both Gurneyhalleck1 and Josie L provided satisfactory responses to address your questions. I would add and refer you however, to the CCC which gives you the infallible (magesterial) teaching of the church on contraception, homosexuality, and abortion. I believe there is a document on stem-cell research in preparation or out already but I stand corrected. JPII addressed the issue of WO if memory serves me correct.

God Bless

BHTech