F
fulloftruth
Guest
I have been told by a protestant on these forums that people in the Catholic Church cannot even agree on how many times the Popes have spoken infallibly. Is this true?
- Status
J
jeffreedy789
Guest
‘people in the catholic church’? what does that mean?
G
Gerry_Hunter
Guest
Protestants seem to be more worried about that doctrine than any Catholic should be.
When Protestants ask questions about the doctrine and whether a statement is made under it, they are looking, typically, to belittle the Church. When Catholics ask the same question, a lot of the time they are looking for loopholes.
FWIW, this Catholic seeks (admittedly with varying degrees of success, but I’m working on that) to OBEY the teachings of the Magisterium. With that emphasis, counting and pigeon-holing becomes a secondary concern.
Blessings,
Gerry
S
SusanL
Guest
I would say to him/her, “So what?” We’re all learning. A lot of protestants don’t know their own faith. Hopefully, they’re learning, too. I wouldn’t worry so much about what people on the forum know or don’t know. I would be more concerned with what the church actually teaches and for that I would go to the catechism or another reliable source.
And I am a former Protestant.
M
Matt16_18
Guest
Infallible means without error. In the broadest sense, to speak infallibly means to tell the truth. How many times in the last two thousand years has the pope spoken the truth? Too many times to count!
How many times have the popes spoken ex cathedra? There is a Catholic urban legend that there are only two times in history that the pope has spoken ex cathedra. But when one tries to find out where the Church has ever made this claim, no evidence can be found.
See this thread: Papal Infallibility Specifics
J
J.R
Guest
In part it is true for the reason alot of Catholic’s do not know their faith very well. So to answer your question we must point out that the Catholic teaching on papal infallibility, which is defined in the 19th century during Vatican Council I, applies only when the pope makes statements ex cathedra (Latin, literally meaning “from the seat”, [of authority];in ancient Jewish tradition one teaches autoritatively from a seated position),i.e., explicity when pronouncing a formal dogmatic teaching. This has only been exercised twice in the history of Church, to proclaim the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary (1854) and the doctrine of the Asumption of Mary (1950).
Ref. “Biblical Fundamentalism What every Catholic should know” pg. 79 by Ronald D. Witherup
God Bless all here.
M
martino
Guest
The only ones that place doubt upon “infallibility” or ex-cathedra statements are the “protestant minded” among us.
M
Matt16_18
Guest
J.R.:
As far as I am concerned, until I see some convincing proof to the contrary, it is only a Catholic urban legend that there are only two papal ex cathedra statements.
What evidence does Witherup provide from an official document of the Magisterium that there has been only two papal ex cathdra statements? I can quote many Catholic authors that make this assertion, but I have never seen any Catholic able back up the assertion with evidence.This has only been exercised twice in the history of Church, to proclaim the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary (1854) and the doctrine of the Asumption of Mary (1950).
Ref. “Biblical Fundamentalism What every Catholic should know” pg. 79 by Ronald D. Witherup
God Bless all here.
As far as I am concerned, until I see some convincing proof to the contrary, it is only a Catholic urban legend that there are only two papal ex cathedra statements.
J
J.R
Guest
Matt 16 18 I’m not trying to argue with you I’m just providing the best answer to this question that I can. I believe what Witherup was saying is since papal infallibity as defined by 1st Vatican Council it has only been proclaimed twice. This is not to say that it was not used before then.
God Bless all here
F
fix
Guest
J.R.:
Just because something as not been formally defined as infallible means that it is fallible. Anything taught on faith and morals by the extraordinary, or ordinary, magisterium is infallible.
G
Gerry_Hunter
Guest
I wonder if, perhaps, a bit of confusion is creeping into the discussion?
Infallibility is a protection from error. That is, when those who exercise the Magisterium of the church present a teaching in the areas of faith and morals, that teaching will be protected from error.
It is a separate question whether or not that teaching is de fide , a part of the deposit of the faith, and therefore necessary for salvation.
I could be wrong, but I get the sense that these two things are being conflated. Although all teaching of the Magisterium is infallible, protected from being in error, not all is de fide .
Blessings,
Gerry
Infallibility is a protection from error. That is, when those who exercise the Magisterium of the church present a teaching in the areas of faith and morals, that teaching will be protected from error.
It is a separate question whether or not that teaching is de fide , a part of the deposit of the faith, and therefore necessary for salvation.
I could be wrong, but I get the sense that these two things are being conflated. Although all teaching of the Magisterium is infallible, protected from being in error, not all is de fide .
Blessings,
Gerry
C
Catholic2003
Guest
Canon law makes it clear that not all magisterial teaching is infallble; however, even the non-infallible teaching is still binding on faithful Catholics:
C
Catholic2003
Guest
J.R.:
Actually, the proclamation of the Immaculate Conception in 1854 predates the First Vatican Council in 1869-1870.
M
Matt16_18
Guest
Gerry Hunter:
The Magisterium of the Church can speak infallibly on matters outside of the deposit of faith – and these infallible teachings can very definitely be about things necessary for our salvation. For example, the Magisterium can speak infallibly about matters involving the natural law, because the Magisterium can speak infallibly about matters involving morality. Rejecting the Church’s infallible teachings about morality is surely a way to become damned for all eternity.
I am not sure that I understand the point that you are trying to make.
The Magisterium of the Church can speak infallibly on matters outside of the deposit of faith – and these infallible teachings can very definitely be about things necessary for our salvation. For example, the Magisterium can speak infallibly about matters involving the natural law, because the Magisterium can speak infallibly about matters involving morality. Rejecting the Church’s infallible teachings about morality is surely a way to become damned for all eternity.
M
Matt16_18
Guest
If the popes have only spoken twice ex cathedra, that means that before Vatican I, there was only one time in the history of the Church that a pope spoke infallibly.
This is why I say that the statement that there are only two times that a pope has spoken infallibly is a Catholic urban legend.
G
GrzeszDeL
Guest
I agree that the twice-only claim is just an urban legend, but I think that this means that the answer to the question at the head of this thread is “yes.” There is disagreement among Catholics (even among educated canonists) about how many times the various Popes have spoken “ex cathedra” throughout history.
What of it? You know the old joke about the priest who meets a college-student at reception after a lecture. The college-student, itching for a fight, tells the priest that he does not believe in organized religion. The priest tells him “you should come to my church then; there is nothing ‘organized’ about it…”
What of it? You know the old joke about the priest who meets a college-student at reception after a lecture. The college-student, itching for a fight, tells the priest that he does not believe in organized religion. The priest tells him “you should come to my church then; there is nothing ‘organized’ about it…”
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
The problem is they view our Church as if it was like theirs. It isn’t.
Protestant scholars have referred to Scripture as a “fallible list of infallible books.” It’s quite absurd, but that’s how some Protestants see it. They often charge that we are not much different, asserting the view that Catholicism rests upon a “fallible list of infallible dogmas.” What they do not understand is, unlike their situation where they don’t have anyone to ask that can answer authoritatively to remove all doubt, we do. We have a living magisterium. We have the benefit of two-way communication. If theologians wonder whether a teaching is infallible, they just send a dubium to the Roman Pontiff. The Pope then sends a *Resondsum ad dubium *removing any doubt. Here’s an example regarding the ordination of women: cin.org/users/james/files/w-ordination.htm
We do not define what the Bible says, or what the Church teaches based upon the opinions of the *Taught *Church. We have a a living Teaching Church. We don’t need to rely solely upon our clever exegesis of ancient Scriptural and magisterial texts to determine what the Teaching Church is teaching. We can simply ask.
So, whether a dogma is infallibly defined, or merely a certain doctrine (yet less-than-absolute certain), we owe our religious assent. Whether a dogma is understood as infallible or not is irrelevent, except for dogmatic theologians (and Protestants, appearantly). Faithful Catholics are to submit to their superiors whether they speak infallibly or not. Nonetheless, if we want to know if a doctrine is infallible, just ask the Pope.
Hebrews 13:17 “Obey your leaders and defer to them, for they keep watch over you and will have to give an account, that they may fulfill their task with joy and not with sorrow, for that would be of no advantage to you.”
F
fix
Guest
Perhaps you could explain exactly what you mean? As it is written I would disagree with it. The magisterium teaches on faith and morals. They are free from teaching error. What else are they teaching that would not binding as you state?
G
Gerry_Hunter
Guest
They sometimes offer teaching on secular policy issues, typically through national bishops’ conferences.
A few years ago here in Canada, for instance, they put out a teaching paper on the economy. No one had to adopt it as their political agenda, but coming from where it did, it was incumbent upon Catholics in Canada to read and consider it in their deliberations (not saying all that many did, mind you).
Likewise in our recent election, they put out a number of items for the faithful to consider when deciding how to vote, but told no one how to vote.
Inasmuch as these things are meant to help form conscience, they are teaching. The discussions are free from error. But not only are they not binding, they make no attempt to bind to a particular course of action.
Blessings,
Gerry
F
fix
Guest
Gerry Hunter:
Fair enough. I would imagine that bishops conferences can only be said to be part of the magisterium when they are speaking as Rome speaks. Their own opinions are not part of the magisterium.
- Status