M
Mgray82
Guest
How do you defend Papal Infallibility when someone brings up the fact that it wasn’t considered dogma until 1870?
- Status
R
Regina_Love
Guest
You can pose this question to an apologist on this site. they can give official teaching.
G
Gorgias
Guest
Did the earth start orbiting the sun (and not vice-versa) only when Copernicus declared his ‘discovery’? Or was it always so?
Did the Bible become inerrant only when it was declared to be so… or was it always without error, even if someone didn’t declare that this was true?
In other words, do true things become true only when they’re declared as such… or is the declaration simply an acknowledgement of the way things are?
Did the Bible become inerrant only when it was declared to be so… or was it always without error, even if someone didn’t declare that this was true?
In other words, do true things become true only when they’re declared as such… or is the declaration simply an acknowledgement of the way things are?
po18guy
Well-known member
Do you know the limitations on infallibility?
Do you have a copy of Catholicism for Dummies? Excellent book for all Catholics to have as a reference - especially those in RCIA.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
Or that it never existed in the First Millennium. Look it up and find where it was exercised in the first 1500 years of the Church
I
IanGE
Guest
Using poor old Copernicus is an uncomfortable example, Gorgias
Copernicus specified in his will that his theories were only to be published after he was dead and buried: he was terrified of being burnt, hung, drawn, quartered as a heretic. And he sure was declared a heretic because he bucked Catholic dogma which declared the sun revolved around the sun from a distorted interpretation of Genesis 1 (God made the earth BEFORE the sun) It was only in May 2010 that the Vatican de-heresied Copernacus and re-buried him with honour. Oops!Prophecy has long been accepted. In Numbers 11 the Spirit of the Lord came upon some elders and they prophesied. Two others who were not with the elders also prophesied as the Spirit fell upon them. Joshua, the sneak, runs to ask Moses to stop them. Moses replied (Nu 11:29): !Are you jealous for my sake? I wish that all the Lord’s people were prophets and the Lord would put His Spirit on them." In Paul’s letters he constantly refers to prophets, notably 1 Cor. 14, when writing of orderly worship: 29: Two or three prophets should should speak and the others discern. And 39: be eager to prophecy and do not forbid speaking in tongues. In Charismatic circles, prophecy - or rather words of knowledge or encouragement - are common and treated with great respect. The Pope prophesying should also be treated with great respect, so long as he speaks in the Holy Spirit, ex cathedra. Although I sometimes wonder if Pope Leo XIII declared papal infallibility in 1870 to cover some of his rabid ant-protestant outbursts!
W
wisedom
Guest
so it would mean that post May 2010, the Church becomes infallible?Using poor old Copernicus is an uncomfortable example, Gorgias
Prophecy has long been accepted. In Numbers 11 the Spirit of the Lord came upon some elders and they prophesied. Two others who were not with the elders also prophesied as the Spirit fell upon them. Joshua, the sneak, runs to ask Moses to stop them. Moses replied (Nu 11:29): !Are you jealous for my sake? I wish that all the Lord’s people were prophets and the Lord would put His Spirit on them." In Paul’s letters he constantly refers to prophets, notably 1 Cor. 14, when writing of orderly worship: 29: Two or three prophets should should speak and the others discern. And 39: be eager to prophecy and do not forbid speaking in tongues. In Charismatic circles, prophecy - or rather words of knowledge or encouragement - are common and treated with great respect. The Pope prophesying should also be treated with great respect, so long as he speaks in the Holy Spirit, ex cathedra. Although I sometimes wonder if Pope Leo XIII declared papal infallibility in 1870 to cover some of his rabid ant-protestant outbursts!
G
Gorgias
Guest
On the other hand, it might just be the perfect example of papal infallibility, vis-a-vis its proper scope – faith & morals, not science!Using poor old Copernicus is an uncomfortable example, Gorgias
And he sure was declared a heretic because he bucked Catholic dogma which declared the sun revolved around the sun from a distorted interpretation of Genesis 1 (God made the earth BEFORE the sun)
W
wisedom
Guest
i understand that you’ll understand that fallible means ‘incapable of making mistakes’!?On the other hand, it might just be the perfect example of papal infallibility, vis-a-vis its proper scope – faith & morals, not science!
G
Gorgias
Guest
I understand that fallible means ‘capable of making mistakes’.
I also understand that the discussion of heliocentrism isn’t within the scope of “matters of faith and morals”, which is the extent of the context of papal infallibility…
W
wisedom
Guest
i think that Copernicus made the DISCOVERY that the church’s knowledge of science was limited and erroneous!
G
Gorgias
Guest
Which, of course, has nothing to do with papal infallibility!
K
kepha1
Guest
Matt. 16:19 - for Jesus to give Peter and the apostles, mere human beings, the authority to bind in heaven what they bound on earth requires infallibility. This is a gift of the Holy Spirit and has nothing to do with the holiness of the person receiving the gift.
Luke 10:16 - whoever hears you, hears me. Whoever rejects you, rejects me. Jesus is very clear that the bishops of the Church speak with Christ’s infallible authority.
more here
Code:
Matt. 18:17-18 - the Church (not Scripture) is the final authority on questions of the faith. This demands infallibility when teaching the faith. She must be prevented from teaching error in order to lead her members to the fullness of salvation.
Matt. 28:20 - Jesus promises that He will be with the Church always. Jesus' presence in the Church assures infallible teaching on faith and morals. With Jesus present, we can never be deceived.
Code:
Luke 22:32 - Jesus prays for Peter, that his faith may not fail. Jesus' prayer for Peter's faith is perfectly efficacious, and this allows Peter to teach the faith without error (which means infallibly).
John 11:51-52 - some non-Catholics argue that sinners cannot have the power to teach infallibly. But in this verse, God allows Caiaphas to prophesy infallibly, even though he was evil and plotted Jesus' death. God allows sinners to teach infallibly, just as He allows sinners to become saints. As a loving Father, He exalts His children, and is bound by His own justice to give His children a mechanism to know truth from error.
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
In theory, let’s say it wasn’t exercised in the first 1500 years. That wouldn’t mean it isn’t a charism of the office. For something to be a quality, one does not have to utilize it. It would be like arguing against a 90 year old virgin’s fertility because you have no examples of his exercise of his fertility.find where it was exercised in the first 1500 years of the Church
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
I second Gorgias’ post and some of the others. The guidance of the Holy Spirit does not operate under a statute of limitations. No doubt, whoever challenged infallibility accepts the canon of Scripture, unidentified for some 300+ years after Christ. When is the cut-off date according to the infallibility skeptic and on what basis shall it be that date? The doctrine should rather be believed based on its merit from the deposit of faith, not peripheral side trivia about it.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
Don’t you think it is a problem if something is a dogma and we never knew it existed for more than 3/4s the life of the Church?
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
You mean the same Church which was responsible for the Western system of universities and whose monks in the Middle Ages were noted for their scientific expertise?
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
In the first 400 years of the Church, we had a BIG problem with people refusing to believe in the Trinity. The doctrine of the Trinity as we know it wasn’t ‘there’ for the first 300 years or so, right Constantine? It certainly existed though. It only had to be defined when people started making a huge fuss against it.
Well, guess what? Same with infallibility. Always existed in the understanding that the Church did not, could not, teach error. No problem with most people for the first 1500 years or so, until a bunch of people (Protestants, not you Orthodox
) starting making a HUGE conniption fit that it couldn’t be so.So. . .The Pope had to declare it. But you know it’s always been there. When was there a time in the vaunted first millennium of Christianity when THE CHURCH taught that it could be capable of teaching error in faith an d morals?
I’ll wait. . .
A
Aeden
Guest
The scientific expertise of monks or individual members of the church doesn’t mean that the Pope can make infallable statements about scientific theories. If he could, we’d already have figured out how to time travel and be asking Jesus these questions in person!
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
No, why would it be? Did I not suggest the Holy Spirit operates without a statute of limitations? (p.s. it was articulated long before 1870, as I hope you know—the pronouncement just didn’t come until then—your description of “never knew it existed” is of course an exagerration)
But the Orthodox have similar beliefs, such as with the Dormition, about which there is precious little in the first 6 centuries. So I don’t think you should have a problem with infallibility on the basis of when it was declared dogma.
- Status