How do you defend Papal Infallibility?

[Gorgias]

from a leading indian fortnightly, i understand that the venerable world-war 2 pope, failed to voice his opinion, condemning the German holocaust…

it is despicable that God’s representative should have acted in a manner contrary to Jesus’ commandment!

You need to read “The Myth of Hitler’s Pope”; it refutes Cornwell’s 1999 “Hitler’s Pope”, from which I presume your assertions come. A quick summary of “The Myth of Hitler’s Pope” can be found on Wiki. Pius’ actions were neither ‘despicable’ nor ‘contrary to Jesus’ commandment’.

 

[wisedom]

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.

				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.

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.

				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.

more here

/QUOTE]

kindly refrain from quoting the Word of God to ratify sinful acts perpetrated by various pops. down the centuries…
some of the pops. were outright sinners, if i am not mistaken, and it is inconceivable how the Holy Spirit, could ever communicate to those contaminated with evil?
each of us has the Holy Spirit, dwelling within our hearts, for is not our heart God’s temple?,so we are empowered and authorised by Him to discern the wheat from the chaff and thus obey Scripture, as the Spirit directs each of us to!
according to a theologian in a catholic fortnightly, Dantes actually portrayed in his paintings, some of the popes burning in hell, apparently, in my view, for their miserable failure to their high CALLING!
do you really believe most conscientiously, that evil in the ceo, even for a moment (aka eternity!), is conspicuous…by its absence???

 

[mercytruth]

If any man love not our Lord Jesus Christ, let him be anathema, maranatha. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. (1 Corinth 16:22-23).

Footnote of Douay-Rheims ISBN 0-89555-677-4:

CHAP.16 VER.22 Let him be anathema, maranatha signifies here a thing accursed. Maran-atha, which according to St. Jerome and St. Chrysostom, signify, The Lord is come already, and therefore is to be taken as an admonition to those who doubted of the resurrection, and to put them in mind that Christ, the judge of the living and the dead, is come already. Others explain Maran-atha:May our Lord come, that is, to judge and punish those with exemplary judgments and punishments, that do not love the Lord Jesus Christ.

May all of us be able to agree:

But to those also who love his appearing…Jesus says, bless those who curse you.

God’s peace

micah

 

[OU812]

to be brief now:
from a leading indian fortnightly, i understand that the venerable world-war 2 pope, failed to voice his opinion, condemning the German holocaust…the theologian goes on to add that the said pope actually colluded with the hitlerian regime, obviously because God’s chosen people were being brutally annihiliated…
it is despicable that God’s representative should have acted in a manner contrary to Jesus’ commandment!
as to our conscience, in conformity to or under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, i have already maintained in my first thread, that it CAN over-rule any wrong or conflicting or ambiguous statements from the magistrate’s office, in so far as it relates to the particular individual…

I guess we’ll just wash away the fact that the Vatican also hid Jews, and to this day, Jewish survivors are thankful.

You do know that regular people also hid Jews on their property and in their homes. Are we to wag the finger at them too because they may have not voiced their dissent with the Nazis?

 

[wisedom]

Which, of course, has nothing to do with papal infallibility!quote)

the pop. has no bus. to pop his head or poke his nose into realms outside of religious doctrine and claim that scientists, inventors, etc., must not put forth any theories or laws, however valid, so long as it is beyond the comprehension of the former!

in the process the cc let loose a reign of terror and murdered in cold blood all those who did for humanity (or contributed to) , what God intended them to do…they were just doing GOD’S WILL FOR THEM, in their lives, for the welfare of humanity!

 

[wisedom]

I guess we’ll just wash away the fact that the Vatican also hid Jews, and to this day, Jewish survivors are thankful.

You do know that regular people also hid Jews on their property and in their homes. Are we to wag the finger at them too because they may have not voiced their dissent with the Nazis?

obviously you place regular people and the vat. on the same footing or at an equal level…

you confirm the equality of an ordinary, weak christian vis-a-vis an extra-ordinary, all-powerful pontiff?

so the HOLY SPIRIT is not more present in the holy father than in a not-so-holy child!..(OF GOD)

now which idiot would care to disagree with you ? (ON POINTS 2 and 3)…and i’m no idiot!

note: i just remembered that the pontiff is not omnipotent, if so, then he is not also infallible!

IT IS GOD ALONE WHO IS OMNIPOTENT AND FOR THE MATTER UNDER REVIEW GOD ALONE IS INFALLIBLE!

 

[wisedom]

if any man love not our lord jesus christ, let him be anathema, maranatha. The grace of our lord jesus christ be with you. (1 corinth 16:22-23).

Footnote of douay-rheims isbn 0-89555-677-4:

chap.16 ver.22 let him be anathema, maranatha signifies here a thing accursed. maran-atha, which according to st. Jerome and st. Chrysostom, signify, the lord is come already, and therefore is to be taken as an admonition to those who doubted of the resurrection, and to put them in mind that christ, the judge of the living and the dead, is come already. Others explain maran-atha:may our lord come, that is, to judge and punish those with exemplary judgments and punishments, that do not love the lord jesus christ.

May all of us be able to agree:

but to those also who love his appearing…jesus says, bless those who curse you.

god’s peace

micah

mara natha…come lord jesus come!

May the god of love and the love of god be with us eternally!

MARA NATHA…COME LORD JESUS COME!

MAY THE GOD OF LOVE AND THE LOVE OF GOD BE WITH US ETERNALLY!

 

[mercytruth]

I was trying to muddle through this one, the other day. What I found was a series of conflicting views over time, as to when the pope is infallible, and when he is not.

I have read a statement just recently, by an avowed catholic in a thread here, that the pope was simply unqualified to make a particular moral judgement that he made. The reference was to the condemnation by JP2 of the Iraq invasion (OIF1). I was surprised to read that. My sense was that any moral pronouncement by the pope is taken at face value by the faithful.

Apparently, there is a more critical process at work. I posed this question differently in another thread. I don’t want to be disrespectful, and such a directly worded question could be seen that way. But I do wonder… How does a Catholic know, when the Church is right, and when it is wrong? Surely, the actions of individuals on behalf of the Church have not always been “right” through history. This is to be expected with such a large institution, having endured for so long.

When does a well formed conscience come into play for a Catholic seeking guidance from his or her Church? When is individual interpretation allowed or encouraged, and when is it discouraged?

I can only speak for myself, but after much study and reflection I have determined that the most reasoned and peaceable course of guidance in walking out my Christian/Catholic life of faith is to hold to the basic doctrinal tenets of the Apostle’s Creed, and to commit my will by the Spirit of God to the Christian morality as propounded in the Didache.

It simplifies my Christian faith and walk, and it minimizes disputes over doctrinal matters that can be endless and distracting to one’s commitment to the moral teachings of Jesus Christ. In these basic truths I hope that God wil forge my conscience into a way of life through Jesus Christ, the Chief Shepherd of my soul.

Thanks for your question

God’s peace be with you

micah

 

[steve_b]

of course you of the hierarchy do need teachers esp. wisdom from the laity!

you have to learn to be humble, to lack hypocrisy, to be free from greed, covetousness, judgement of others and of course purity, which does not include sexual assault of holy innocents!

What does this have to do with the topic of the thread?

 

[steve_b]

so why do you doubt the presence of GOD in the humble and the poor?

How does this address the topic of the thread?

 

[Gorgias]

the pop. has no bus. to pop his head or poke his nose into realms outside of religious doctrine

That’s not true. We all have the right and the responsibility to lift up our brothers and sisters in all manner of issues, especially in those which effect their souls, even if they’re not matters of religious doctrine!

However – the pope only speaks infallibly on matters of faith and morals. You seem to be having a problem ‘getting’ this… :sad_yes:

and claim that scientists, inventors, etc., must not put forth any theories or laws, however valid, so long as it is beyond the comprehension of the former!

You might want to provide the example that you’re thinking about. I have the sneaking suspicion that you’ve fallen for the mis-conceptions about the Galileo affair, which have less to do about scientific theory and more to do with ability to prove one’s theories…

in the process the cc let loose a reign of terror and murdered in cold blood all those who did for humanity (or contributed to) , what God intended them to do.

c’mon now… talk about sweeping generalizations that can’t be proven or defended! pray tell… what reign of terror? what murder in cold blood? what injustice?

 

[Gorgias]

I can only speak for myself, but after much study and reflection I have determined that the most reasoned and peaceable course of guidance in walking out my Christian/Catholic life of faith is to hold to the basic doctrinal tenets of the Apostle’s Creed

Micah,

I’ll have to look back through this thread, but this speaks to the question I was hoping to learn from you. Why only up to the Apostles’ Creed? It was developed after the development of the Nicene / Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed. Why not stand by the Nicene Creed, then, since it came before the Apostles’ Creed? More to the point, what’s the reason for acknowledging the authority of the Church up to that point, but not beyond it? That’s what has me confused about your stance.

Blessings,

G.

p.s., maybe this is your answer to my questions: “It simplifies my Christian faith and walk, and it minimizes disputes over doctrinal matters that can be endless and distracting to one’s commitment to the moral teachings of Jesus Christ.” Yet, ‘simple’ can still be ‘inaccurate’, and ‘minimizing disputes’ isn’t a virtue per se, and ‘commitment to moral teachings of Christ’ isn’t the entirety of Jesus’ message. Why stop there?

 

[mercytruth]

Micah,

I’ll have to look back through this thread, but this speaks to the question I was hoping to learn from you. Why only up to the Apostles’ Creed? It was developed after the development of the Nicene / Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed. Why not stand by the Nicene Creed, then, since it came before the Apostles’ Creed? More to the point, what’s the reason for acknowledging the authority of the Church up to that point, but not beyond it? That’s what has me confused about your stance.

Blessings,

G.

p.s., maybe this is your answer to my questions: “It simplifies my Christian faith and walk, and it minimizes disputes over doctrinal matters that can be endless and distracting to one’s commitment to the moral teachings of Jesus Christ.” Yet, ‘simple’ can still be ‘inaccurate’, and ‘minimizing disputes’ isn’t a virtue per se, and ‘commitment to moral teachings of Christ’ isn’t the entirety of Jesus’ message. Why stop there?

G.

Actually, it would seem that some form of the Apostle’s Creed predates the Nicene Creed. There was a baptismal formula that Tertullian, and also Bishop Cyprian speak of. Quoting a portion of the following article:

**A few years before this (c. 390), the letter addressed to Pope Siricius by the Council of Milan (Migne, P.L., XVI, 1213) supplies the earliest known instance of the combination Symbolum Apostolorum (“Creed of the Apostles”) in these striking words: “If you credit not the teachings of the priests . . . let credit at least be given to the Symbol of the Apostles which the Roman Church always preserves and maintains inviolate.” The word Symbolum in this sense, standing alone, meets us first about the middle of the third century in the correspondence of St. Cyprian and St. Firmilia, the latter in particular speaking of the Creed as the “Symbol of the Trinity”, and recognizing it as an integral part of the rite of baptism (Migne, P.L., III, 1165, 1143). It should be added, moreover, that Kattenbusch (II, p. 80, note) believes that the same use of the words can be traced as far back as Tertullian. **

newadvent.org/cathen/01629a.htm

There is a beauty and simplicity of the Apostle’s Creed that resonates personally with me. It is not burdened with all the controversy that surrounds the Nicene Creed, which in my personal opinion, attempted to frame a mystery (which no one can explain, or understand) into a creedal formula.

God’s peace

micah

 

[Gorgias]

Actually, it would seem that some form of the Apostle’s Creed predates the Nicene Creed. There was a baptismal formula that Tertullian, and also Bishop Cyprian speak of. Quoting a portion of the following article:

**The word Symbolum in this sense, standing alone, meets us first about the middle of the third century in the correspondence of St. Cyprian and St. Firmilia, the latter in particular speaking of the Creed as the “Symbol of the Trinity”, and recognizing it as an integral part of the rite of baptism (Migne, P.L., III, 1165, 1143). It should be added, moreover, that Kattenbusch (II, p. 80, note) believes that the same use of the words can be traced as far back as Tertullian. **

Hmm… this only demonstrates that the word “symbolum” was used as early as Tertullian, but not that the Apostles’ Creed (as we know it) existed then.

You quoted the Catholic Encyclopedia from 1917. The current edition (the New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1983) states:

The creedal statements used in the Western Churches for instructing catechumens had been almost invariably versions of the old Roman Creed. Rufinus of Aquileia had given evidence of the existence of a creed attributed to the Apostles at Rome and Aquileia in the late 4th century. An almost identical creed was used at Milan in catechetical instruction; its text can be reconstructed from three sermons of Augustine (212; 213; and 214) and from the Explanatio Symboli attributed to Ambrose. Six sermons (57 to 62) of PETER CHRYSOLOGUS, Bishop of Ravenna (431 to 450), and a homily of MAXIMUS OF TURIN (Hom. 83 de trad. symb.) make reference to the creeds used in their respective sees. NICETAS OF REMESIANA (c. 335 to 414) provided the formula of faith used in the Balkan area (Patrologia Latina, ed. J. P. Migne, 52: 847–76). Quodvultdeus of Carthage (c. 437) is credited with the sermon preserving the African creedal formulary [G. Morin, Revue Bénedictine 31 (1914) 156–35 (1923) 233–]. Priscillian (d. 385) quotes the creed used at Avila in Spain (Tract. 2), and a 6th-century Spanish creed has been reconstructed from the works of Martin of Braga (De correct. rust.), Ildefonsus of Toledo (De cognit. bapt. 36), and the Ad Elipandum epistula (1.22). Finally, three Gallic creeds are attributed to Faustus of Riez (c. 458 to 477), Caesarius of Arles (502 to 542), and Cyprian of Toulon (516 to 546). All these creeds have the Roman Creed as foundation and differ from it only in minor variations.

So, the earliest we can place the text of the Apostles’ Creed seems to be the late 4th century. That is, following the Creed of Constantinople.

There is a beauty and simplicity of the Apostle’s Creed

Yes, there certainly is. Its presence in the new Roman Missal is a good thing.

 

[mercytruth]

Hmm… this only demonstrates that the word “symbolum” was used as early as Tertullian, but not that the Apostles’ Creed (as we know it) existed then.

You quoted the Catholic Encyclopedia from 1917. The current edition (the New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1983) states:

So, the earliest we can place the text of the Apostles’ Creed seems to be the late 4th century. That is, following the Creed of Constantinople.

Yes, there certainly is. Its presence in the new Roman Missal is a good thing.

I do not know if this author has documentation for his explanation of the origin of the Apostle’s Creed around 180 AD. It does make internal sense from what we know of the heresy of Marcion who taught that the God of the OT is not the God and Father of his Son, our Lord Jesus Christ.

creeds.net/ancient/Apostles_Intro.htm

God’s peace

micah

 

[wisedom]

How does this address the topic of the thread?

well that was an answer to your quote found at the end of every message…

you firmly believe that the Spirit guides only the pope and the caucus surrounding him, but the same DIVINITY does not guide the poor and humble, the poorest of the poor who are dearer to Jesus!, to discern that what is taught to us must be the original message recd. from God and not tainted by any infilteration of evil into those holding the authority, and of course, cannot violate Sacred Sripture, principally Jesus’ commandment!

in any discussion we will find that one must be prepared to indulge in other related topics in order to understand other related problems and to see the picture in its totality…to limit y/s to water-tight compartments is the easiest way to protect y/s!

 

[steve_b]

well that was an answer to your quote found at the end of every message…

Are you refering to the quote from Padre Pio?
w:

you firmly believe that the Spirit guides only the pope and the caucus surrounding him, but the same DIVINITY does not guide the poor and humble, the poorest of the poor who are dearer to Jesus!,

I never said that. That’s your projections.
w:

to discern that what is taught to us must be the original message recd. from God and not tainted by any infilteration of evil into those holding the authority, and of course, cannot violate Sacred Sripture, principally Jesus’ commandment!

NT Scripture was written by, in, and for the Catholic Church. The only Church Jesus established. This is the Church that is the pillar and foundation of truth. This Church wrote scripture, collected it and canonized it into what we call the bible. If you have doubts about the quality of the Church who wrote it, how can you have faith in the finished product called the bible?
w:

in any discussion we will find that one must be prepared to indulge in other related topics in order to understand other related problems and to see the picture in its totality…to limit y/s to water-tight compartments is the easiest way to protect y/s!

The topic is “how do you defend papal infallibility.”

 

[wisedom]

That’s not true. We all have the right and the responsibility to lift up our brothers and sisters in all manner of issues, especially in those which effect their souls, even if they’re not matters of religious doctrine!

However – the pope only speaks infallibly on matters of faith and morals. You seem to be having a problem ‘getting’ this… :sad_yes:

You might want to provide the example that you’re thinking about. I have the sneaking suspicion that you’ve fallen for the mis-conceptions about the Galileo affair, which have less to do about scientific theory and more to do with ability to prove one’s theories…

c’mon now… talk about sweeping generalizations that can’t be proven or defended! pray tell… what reign of terror? what murder in cold blood? what injustice?

hon gorgias…

i am surprised that you are blissfully ignorant of the atrocities and sins of ommission and or commission perpetrated by innumerable popes down the centuries, which compelled the then pope to humble himself on his knees before the whole world and seek forgiveness in Jesus’ name, for killing of innocent christians on the false grounds of their having violated his sacred authority over the cc, which authority was abused to include matters not relating to faith and morals…it is indisputable that some of the popes were deficient in morality in general…

my history is poor, but from what i have read, innocents were ex-communicated, condemned unjustly as heretics and burnt or killed otherwise, or burnt as witches, because of the outright abuse of religious authority, which was extended to other spheres despotically…

the point is, that even if the concerned faithful violated any doctrine, the pope had not acted in conformity to Jesus’ teaching of LOVE, MERCY, FORGIVENESS, etc…

what kinda shepherd is this that kills innocent sheep entrusted to his care?

so do not feign ignorance!

 

[steve_b]

hon gorgias…

i am surprised that you are blissfully ignorant of the atrocities and sins of ommission and or commission perpetrated by innumerable popes down the centuries, which compelled the then pope to humble himself on his knees before the whole world and seek forgiveness in Jesus’ name, for killing of innocent christians on the false grounds of their having violated his sacred authority over the cc, which authority was abused to include matters not relating to faith and morals…it is indisputable that some of the popes were deficient in morality in general…

my history is poor, but from what i have read, innocents were ex-communicated, condemned unjustly as heretics and burnt or killed otherwise, or burnt as witches, because of the outright abuse of religious authority, which was extended to other spheres despotically…

the point is, that even if the concerned faithful violated any doctrine, the pope had not acted in conformity to Jesus’ teaching of LOVE, MERCY, FORGIVENESS, etc…

what kinda shepherd is this that kills innocent sheep entrusted to his care?

so do not feign ignorance!

Apparantly your memory of history and your reading materials is highly selective.

 

[Gorgias]

i am surprised that you are blissfully ignorant of the atrocities and sins of ommission and or commission perpetrated by innumerable popes down the centuries

LOL… not ignorant, just curious what you’re referring to…

my history is poor, but from what i have read, innocents were ex-communicated, condemned unjustly as heretics and burnt or killed otherwise, or burnt as witches, because of the outright abuse of religious authority

Details, please, or else it’s just all hearsay…