Infallibility Disproven?

[Peace_Seeker_1]

VociMike:

I see this kind of nonsense all the time. People who are vehemently opposed to a particular Catholic doctrine, who nonetheless know how it should work, which is different than the way the Church says it does work.

I can imagine some crank telling a roomful of physicists “The Theory of Relativity means what it says. Everything is relative.”

But doesn’t 100% in infallibility mean that all quotes ex cathedra are infallible? If a pope is speaking ex cathedra, the case should be that the saying will be infallible, 100%, at any point in history?

Or is there something I’m missing here?
Peace

 

[bigdawg]

Peace_Seeker:

But doesn’t 100% in infallibility mean that all quotes ex cathedra are infallible? If a pope is speaking ex cathedra, the case should be that the saying will be infallible, 100%, at any point in history?

Or is there something I’m missing here?
Peace

Take a look at the following link:
ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V1.HTM

In particular, look at session 4 / chapter 4 / paragraph 9.

An “infallible” statement is forever infallible by definition.

 

[VociMike]

Peace_Seeker:

But doesn’t 100% in infallibility mean that all quotes ex cathedra are infallible? If a pope is speaking ex cathedra, the case should be that the saying will be infallible, 100%, at any point in history?

Or is there something I’m missing here?
Peace

Yes, all ex cathedra statements are infallible, but not all (or anywhere near all) papal speeches or documents are infallible. When the person writes “To apply as infallible all the words spoken by the popes over the centuries, according to Catholic historians, would add roughly another 150 volumes to our one-volume Bible.” he is claiming that “all the words spoken by the popes over the centuries” must be infallible, or papal infallibility is a false doctrine.

This is what I mean by people who don’t believe in a Catholic teaching telling Catholics how it would work if it were true. The Church is very clear under what circumstances papal infallibility applies, and those circumstances are definitely not “all the words spoken by the popes over the centuries”.

 

[bones_IV]

Three conditions are 1. It has to be a proclamation to the whole church. 2. It has to be on faith and moral issues. 3. It has to be in communion with the bishops.

 

[awfulthings9]

bones_IV:

Three conditions are 1. It has to be a proclamation to the whole church. 2. It has to be on faith and moral issues. 3. It has to be in communion with the bishops.

I think you meant, for number 3, to say that infallibility applies to bishops when they are in communion with one another. The pope, however, doesn’t need to be in communion with the bishops, though this is usually the case (though he must be in communion with the declarations of his predecessors’ infallible defintions - see below). Here are the official conditions, as defined in the Vatican decree (and cited from Wikipedia):

• The pontiff must teach in his public and official capacity as spiritual head of the Church universal, not merely in his private capacity as a theologian.
• He must be teaching some doctrine of faith or morals in a manner that explicitly and solemnly defines an issue.
• His teaching cannot contradict anything the Church has taught officially and previously.
• It must be evident that he intends to teach with his supreme Apostolic authority. In other words, he must convey his wish to determine some point of doctrine in an absolutely final and irrevocable way. There are well-recognized formulas that are used to express this intention, such as “We declare, decree and define, . . .”.
• It must be clear that the Pope intends to bind the whole Church. Unless the Pope formally addresses the whole Church in the recognized official way, he is assumed to not intend his teaching to be ex cathedra and infallible (unless he is reiterating what has always been taught).

In addition, though this isn’t a requirement, infallible definitions are usually attached to an anathema. But anyway, your point is well made, bones, that the only way that an anti-Catholic can disprove infallibility is to redefine it in such a way as to complement his evidence. Peace be with you.

 

[Neithan]

It’s important that one doesn’t wound another’s pride (unfortunately) when dealing with stuff like this. Tim is obviously very convinced in his beliefs, albeit false. I hope he will come to see the mountain of misconception upon which the bulwark of Protestantism is built. What I find about many heretics/schismatics/apostates who simply refuse to reason fairly is that there is often some moral Catholic teaching which condemns some or other behaviour which they are particularly attached to–and thus they will move all hell itself to blind themselves to the Truth, and believe every kind of absurdity which attempts to undermine the integrity of the Church. I hope this isn’t the case with your friend Tim, since he actually links to Catholic documents without having the sense to personally read them to sustain the credibility of his arguments. Is it malice or just plain laziness?

 

[awfulthings9]

You know, I just received about three e-mails from Timothy claiming that he “went and read the catachism”, and sure enough, the 2nd commandment was deleted. I’ve provided him with e-mail after e-mail explaining that it is simply numbered differently and the 2nd is included as part of the first. I’ve told him that until he acknowledges that, we have no futher business to discuss.

He then sends e-mails like this in response to my claim about the Qui Quorundam: “Question: has the Qui Quorundam been doctored up like the Ten Commandments?”

 

[John_Paul_III]

Jesus Christ was right,

Turn the other cheek!

I would walk away, all this can do at this point is hurt your faith.

 

[FCEGM]

awfulthings9:

You know, I just received about three e-mails from Timothy claiming that he “went and read the catachism”, and sure enough, the 2nd commandment was deleted. I’ve provided him with e-mail after e-mail explaining that it is simply numbered differently and the 2nd is included as part of the first. I’ve told him that until he acknowledges that, we have no futher business to discuss.

He then sends e-mails like this in response to my claim about the Qui Quorundam: “Question: has the Qui Quorundam been doctored up like the Ten Commandments?”

Well, it seems, then, that you are dealing with someone either totally incapable of dealing logically with the issues or someone who is so deep in his animus against Catholicism that he has blinded himself to the truth (and it’s probably a case of both).

God bless you for your efforts; perhaps someday he will be graced with the removal of his blindness.

 

[bigdawg]

awfulthings9:

You know, I just received about three e-mails from Timothy claiming that he “went and read the catachism”, and sure enough, the 2nd commandment was deleted. I’ve provided him with e-mail after e-mail explaining that it is simply numbered differently and the 2nd is included as part of the first. I’ve told him that until he acknowledges that, we have no futher business to discuss.

He then sends e-mails like this in response to my claim about the Qui Quorundam: “Question: has the Qui Quorundam been doctored up like the Ten Commandments?”

I believe anything else you do, except praying for him, will be useless but you could always ask him to:

a.) Provide you proof that his quote excerpted from Qui Quorundam actually exists in the document.

b.) Have him send you from the catechism the entire section on the first commandment. After he sends it to you, you should take his e-mail, put in bold font the sections that discuss graven images, idols, and such things and return it to him. After you return it to him you should ask him how he missed this?

I guess it’s always possible that he is not looking under the first commandment but expects this information to appear under what he considers the second commandment, so maybe he is trying…although it doesn’t appear that way.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Peace_Seeker:

But doesn’t 100% in infallibility mean that all quotes ex cathedra are infallible?

No.

Peace_Seeker:

If a pope is speaking ex cathedra, the case should be that the saying will be infallible, 100%, at any point in history?

Or is there something I’m missing here?

Only the doctrine which is declared to be definitively part of Divine and Catholic Faith is defined ex cathedra, not the entire document from which it came.

Furthermore, canon law states, “No doctrine is understood to be infallibly defined unless this is manifestly demonstrated.” (canon 749, §3). Thus, if there’s doubt as to the infallible nature of a doctrine, the final arbiter is the Roman Pontiff. If the Roman Pontiff clarifies that indeed a doctrine is infallible, then it is.

However, for a Catholic, whether this part of a pastor’s teaching is infallible or that part of it is not, is irrelevent. It seems such academic exercises are only relevent to dogmatic theologians and dissenters. Faithful Catholics owe their submission to all doctrines of the Catholic Church, whether they are infallible or not. So the argument is rather pointless. But if dissenters want to attempt to disprove infallibility, they will not be the first one in the past 2000 years, nor the last to fail at such an attempt.

However, most dissenters have little to no education in dogmatic theology, so they are like a 5th grader trying to argue with a physicists, attempting to disprove quantum physics. The 5th grader won’t understand the reply of the physicist, nor will he be satisfied with the answers, especially if they have no intention about learning more, but only intend to argue.

Dogmatic theology is a science, and in the terms, propositions, and arguments within that science, infallibility has not, nor cannot be disproven. As a former-dissenter, I know this because I’ve already tried to prove Mother Church wrong for many years. And I’ve read more books on dogmatic theology than any dissenter I know. Sometimes in our attempt to prove Mother Church false, we come to love Mother Church even more.

 

[RyanL]

It really is pretty silly for him to quote a document, and when the document is produced claim that it is a forgery. Moreover, to claim that the original, which he never read yet quoted anyway, contained the controverted text without producing a shred of documentation takes his argument from silly to downright cockamamee.

As for the 10 Commandments, you may ask him what right the Protestants had to remove the 1st Commandment from the Jewish numbering:

“I am the Lord your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt.”

The Protestants completely removed *this *commandment! By what authority?!? It’s clear that the Catholic position is that they have the authority of Christ; what is the Protestant claim to authority by which they can change the Jewish 10 Commandments?

Or did the Catholics get the Jews to “doctor” their 10 Commandments in order to make him look like he didn’t actually do the research? :whacky:

You may also direct him to a recent book, The Myth of Hitler’s Pope, written by a JEWISH RABBI who was appalled that anyone could claim that Pope Pius XII cooperated with the Nazis.

Which other points are you still having difficulty addressing?

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[RyanL]

itsjustdave1988:

However, most dissenters have little to no education in dogmatic theology, so they are like a 5th grader trying to argue with a physicists, attempting to disprove quantum physics. The 5th grader won’t understand the reply of the physicist, nor will he be satisfied with the answers, especially if they have no intention about learning more, but only intend to argue.

So what you’re saying is, “When it comes to Catholic theology, please don’t try this at home; at least, not without a helmet.”

I agree.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[itsjustdave1988]

“Question: has the Qui Quorundam been doctored up like the Ten Commandments?”

As for the numbering of the Ten Commandments, Luther used the same numbering as do Catholics.

This is yet another trivial controversy between Catholics and Protestants. There have historically been three numberings of the Decalogue: 1) the Jewish Reckoning, 2) the Augustinian-Lutheran Reckoning, and 3) the Orthodox-Reformed Reckoning. Nothing’s missing in any of these reckonings. The differences exists because sacred texts do not number the Decalogue. These numbering schemes are traditions of men to which many ‘sola scriptura’ Christians appear to unknowingly adhere to. You can read more about it here …

**The Division of the Ten Commandments **
by James Akin
cin.org/users/james/files/numberng.htm

Here’s an excerpt…

The Catholic Church, though it has most commonly used the Augustinian-Lutheran division, has made no formal determination of the matter and is not dogmatic about how the Decalogue should be divided. Thus the Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

2066 The division and numbering of the Commandments have varied in the course of history. The present catechism follows the division of the Commandments established by St. Augustine, which has become traditional in the Catholic Church. It is also that of the Lutheran confessions. The Greek Fathers worked out a slightly different division, which is found in the Orthodox Churches and Reformed communities.

The Catechism thus states that it uses the Augustinian grouping because it is traditional, but not because it is the only interpretation or one which the Church teaches is necessarily the correct one. Catholics thus have liberty of conscience in determining which division of the Decalogue they believe best.

Oddly enough, the controversy over the numbering of the Decalogue is only important among some but not all Protestants. Orthodox, Catholics and most Protestants, although their numbering differs too, never seem to be too bothered by it. This seems to indicate that anti-Catholic polemics are the real source of the controversy, which are at their worst among certain pockets of Protestantism.

I suggest that no amount of rational explanation can break through this guy’s anti-Catholic fortress which he has obviously built around himself. I recommend instead you pray for him.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

RyanL:

So what you’re saying is, “When it comes to Catholic theology, please don’t try this at home; at least, not without a helmet.”

I agree.

God Bless,
RyanL

I would say that if you are trying to learn another man’s religion, then be humble enough to admit that you are likely to be less knowledgeable about what it is he believes. I don’t know how many times a non-Catholic has asserted to me what it is I believe. It’s absurd. I’m pretty sure he knows best what he believes, and I KNOW BEST what it is I believe.

 

[JDHallKY]

Awfulthings, this conversation you’re having sounds exactly like a number of converations I’ve had with Protestant friends and family members since I decided to become Catholic. The 10 Commandments argument is typical. Most Evangelical Protestants who “study” the Catholic Church think of the Church in a DaVinci Code sort of way, that it is some sort of secret cabal of men who put up a facade to decieve millions of people and preserve positions of power for themselves. Yet, fortunately for the anti-Catholics and DaVinci Code-type thinkers, these powerful men in the Church aren’t very good at orchestrating a conspiracy. They leave all of these documents lying around with the “truth” in them and even print Catechisms that reveal their horrible deception!

Anti-Catholics, therefore, open the Catechism and “discover” that the Church has altered the 10 Commandments! They actually removed the second one! To ask why the Commandments are numbered differently than the numbering they are used to is not even something they think of. The truth is obvious: The Church needs to preserve its favorite sin and biggest money-maker, statues! If they, while they have the Catechism in front of them anyway, had only looked at the Church’s teachings on the first commandment, they would see the Church does not ignore that commandment, but perhaps that’s too much to ask since they’ve already, in two seconds, proven the Catholic Church is hiding the truth.

I try to enter into these discussions time and time again with a charitable spirit, but it can get really tiresome after a while…

 

[ComradeAndrei]

One never wants to cut off a conversation, so as not to appear to be throwing in the towel and offering a concession to the protestant belief, but when it comes to the point where our Fundamentalist Protestant friends go into conspiracy theories, nothing you say will be listened to. Pray for them, patiently answer questions, but debate will not be possible-other than as a source of common frustration.

I wish the folks that think like this would actually stop and THINK about their ideas for a second. Does it make any sense, whatsoever, to believe that the Catholic Church is some sort of sinister, behind-the-scenes, dark power that can censor and “correct” all of its documents and various and sundry documents of other people in total secrecy? Absolutely silence all opposition in the past, yet the “truth” survived? If the Church was so sinisterly powerful, why do any protestants even exist? Does this big bad Church just like to toy with people? Is it going to use its massive supercomputer, ala Jack Chick, to round up “Bible-believing” Christians and murder them all, just like the other good Bible-believing Evangelicals-the Albigensians and the Catharists? Wouldn’t suprise me, considering they killed off 95 million (or was that 95 billion?) people during the Inquisition.

 

[Returnee]

Re Post #1 (and the whole thread):

I am a relatively new returnee to the Church, so I could be wrong about this, however, I do believe that the Pope himself has spoken *ex cathedra *only twice, in the history of the Church. Once, when speaking on the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, and the other time when speaking of the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary into Heaven.

Thus, when this person says "this pope said this and that ex cathedra" (paraphrased), he is simply wrong, as a matter of history. At the very least, he’s wrong when he states, as an axiom, that the Pope says that everything he (the Pope) says is infallable. That’s not the doctrine of *ex cathedra. *The Pope is a mere man, just like the rest of us, and only during a special time, when special circumstances are met, can he speak infallably. The Pope goes to Confession just like the rest of us, for goodness sake, how can he claim he’s “infallable” all the time?

I could be wrong. (about the Pope himself speaking *ex cathedra *only twice in 2000 years) but I’m pretty sure I’m right.

That said, it would seem (after reading the thread as a whole), even if it were true that these statements throughout history were spoken *ex cathedra, *then the claims made by the author were false at any rate.

With all due respect, it seems your Protestant friend is a Jack Chick wannabe; making up “facts” about the Church, then running with them for his own self aggrandizement. Truly, nothing new here.

 

[awfulthings9]

Letter from Timothy:

"I’m checking on what you gave me, which is
why I asked for your (name removed by moderator)ut in the first place. And, yes, I’ve looked at
the site and what I looked at did not list the second commandment
anywhere…am not saying I could have overlooked it, but I didn’t see
it. I want to buy a New Catechism book. I assume you have one. As a
favor, would you look up the Ten Commandments there and see if the
second commandment is listed.

About showing me where other Christians fell: first, two wrongs don’t
make a right. Secondly, as a lifestyle, are you saying the apostle John
was wrong in how he said we were to judge people? I don’t believe that
is what you are saying. You, more than, I should know the character of
the popes. Generally speaking, were most of the facts I presented correct?

Also, I’ve heard reference to a “Catholic Encyclopedia.” Is that a
purchase you recommend I make? I assume it is put out by the Catholic
church.

I’m cutting off emails for a week or two until I have time to do more
research…am not trying to avoid you. I’ll weigh whether to come to
your forum…I’m afraid that I’d feel a bit like a cat in a room full of
rocking chairs or Daniel willingly walking into the Lions’ Den…will
definitely consider it. When and where do you meet?..is it a large
group or just a handfull of people?

You and the others are in my prayers."

 

[awfulthings9]

I’ve already answered all the points in the above e-mail in private, but I wanted to keep the thread updated with his side since he hasn’t dropped into the Lion’s Den yet.