W
Is it heretical to pray that Jews continue to follow the Old Covenant?
- Status
U
una_fides
Guest
There are many things that are mysteries, but if you actually quote the document and the Scripture at large neither of them say that the Jews will be saved by following the Old Covenant or that they will be saved apart from faith in Christ. The context of the passage of Romans that you cited states that the Jews were broken off the tree of life because of their unbelief.
Rom 11:20 “because of unbelief they were broken off”
Notice also the following context:
22 See then the goodness and the severity of God: towards them indeed that are fallen, the severity; but towards thee, the goodness of God, if thou abide in goodness. Otherwise thou also shalt be cut off. 23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft them in again.
How does the Scripture say that the Jews can be grafted back in again? It clearly says that they are in a state of unbelief and that they can be grafted back into the Tree through not lacking belief, aka through faith in Christ, who was the source of their stumbling. The Jews in Christ’s day continued to follow their Jewish religion, but as the Scripture clearly says they were nevertheless faithless. Thus, the Church has always taught and prayed for the faithless Jews. Yes, that is offensive to them, but the truth of Scripture will offend. Again, none of you who are attacking my approach has so much as touched the fact that Jesus’s words, St. Paul’s inspired words, and St. Steven’s inspired words about the Jews were all and still are highly offensive to them, so much so that the Jews in all three cases either attempted or completed stoning them for it.
I think you are confused as to what exactly they have “agreed about” and are overstating your case here. Can you please show where they say that Jews will be saved outside the Church? Also you do realize that there were 262 popes before the last 4 that taught things as well. How do you know what they taught? You read their writings and interpret them in light of what the Church has constantly taught on the particular issue. You must first understand what the Church has always taught prior to Vatican II and it’s vagueness in order to be able to properly interpret and understand the documents that have proceeded the Council. Can you tell me are popes today of a higher authority than those past or do they have some type of special revelation not available to previous popes? There is no new public revelation according to the teaching of the Church, and the Church only is faithful and draws from Tradition, which is what has been handed on. Modern popes must be faithful to the same tradition of their predecessors and must teach “the same doctrine, in the same sense, with the same understanding” as the 262 popes have before them (Vatican I).
no-salvation-outside-the-church.blogspot.com/
U
una_fides
Guest
Actually I’m quite open to be shown the truth. To do so you will have to show me how the particular teaching and its understanding has its roots in the constant Tradition of the Church rather than being novelty. I hope you hold the same standard of openness for yourself that you expect of others. Can you tell me if you have read and studied over the Church’s constant teaching on no salvation outside the Church and the status of the Jews in reference to Christ and his gospel? Have you read Church approved theology books prior to Vatican II on these subjects? Have you given them much thought? Just because a priest or bishop teaches something does not make it legitimate. In the days of the Arian heresies, the majority of the bishops in the world were actually heretics. How was one to know who was teaching the truth? Even a pope embraced heresy and was later condemned for it. The key is one must be rooted in Tradition and the constant teaching of the Church. That is where Arius and those who followed his heresy and all other preceding and subsequent heresies have failed.
The pope is safeguarded from error when it comes to faith and morals; however, that does not mean that everything he does is correct or the best thing for the Church or that it will produce good fruits. The ambiguity is a problem when people are using it to try to say that Church has changed its teachings and when the faith is not clearly communicated through the liturgy. I’m not saying that the new liturgy does not communicate the faith, but it certainly lacks the sacrificial nature that the TLM has developed through over a century and a half of organic development. The Traditional Mass was not created by a committee; it was preserved and developed organically throughout the centuries. Even pope Benedict lamented the break from the development of the liturgy and is trying to revive the Traditional Mass to help fix some of these problems.
Actually, I thought this thread was about Jews, Christ, and salvation. Who brought up liturgy here? And no it’s not my own personal interpretation any more than it’s just yours. Any conclusions I come to are based on the Tradition of the Church, and if I’m shown to teach anything contrary to the defined teachings of Holy Mother Church, then I will most certainly recant. I do hope you would do the same.
Again infallibility is the absence of error. It is not a charism that protects the pope from promulgating ambiguity that can cause problems and even people to defect from the Catholic faith, as has so unfortunately occurred in our Church ever since V2. Protestant churches did not witness the fallout that V2 produced. In fact, many of them reaped in the members from the Catholic Church who lost their faith in the Church and instead desired to fulfill their own personal desires making their religion what they wanted. True Catholics on the other hand must be faithful to Tradition to the point of being willing to lay down your life for the faith. Vatican II has produced ambiguity that makes faith in the revealed truth more difficult for many, and less and less people would be willing to die for that faith. Ecumenism in its modern practice has often bred an outlook that if another religion is correct and mine wrong then I want to be in good with those people. It is based on a lack of faith in the truth that results from compromising on Catholic truth for the sake of not offending the enemies of the gospel.
P
pnewton
Guest
I find the most interesting thing in this thread to be the premise and the way it was presented.
“Pray that Jews continue to follow the Old Covenant” is how the title is worded when prayer says " continue to grow in the love of his name and in faithfulness to his covenant." Now the OP goes to pain to say it is the same thing. However, if it means the same thing, then why was it necessary to slant the title by changing the words. No, I think the more logical answer is that if one desires to find heresy, then one will find it, even if it does not exist. What I have always found troublesome is that a Catholic would want to play this role.
“Pray that Jews continue to follow the Old Covenant” is how the title is worded when prayer says " continue to grow in the love of his name and in faithfulness to his covenant." Now the OP goes to pain to say it is the same thing. However, if it means the same thing, then why was it necessary to slant the title by changing the words. No, I think the more logical answer is that if one desires to find heresy, then one will find it, even if it does not exist. What I have always found troublesome is that a Catholic would want to play this role.
U
una_fides
Guest
You have been grossly misinformed concerning what constitutes infallible teaching. To know what is and is not infallible, we must rely on what the Church has taught on this matter and not what modern theologians who deny these and other fundamental truths of the faith such as Hans Kung may teach. And just because you learned something in your seminary that you personally believe was orthodox in your opinion does not mean that it was in any way correct. It is the Church that decides which of her teachings are and are not infallible.
2 Tim 4:3-4 For there shall be a time when people will not endure sound doctrine but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers having itching ears: And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto myths.
Your professors and books cannot be trusted unless they are rooted in the teachings of the Church and cite them as defense beginning with the highest and most authoritative writings, and if they should cite a ruling of the Church, read it in its full context. Do not just accept their word on it. You must also see what else the Church has taught. Do not rely on a few mere proof texts, but actually study matters more completely to be sure you are not or have not traveled down the wrong path by blindly following your teachers if they are deviating from the faith.
U
una_fides
Guest
Did you bother to read the entire thread? Can you honestly say that the prayer is clear concerning the faith? I was troubled that the prayer seemed to be saying for Jews to continue to persist in their ways rather than change and convert to the truth, so I started this thread to try to get answers. Yet you criticize me as if I’m purposely trying to find heresies and vague wording when that is most certainly NOT my goal. My intent is to be faithful to the Church’s teachings and to know the truth. When many bishops today are interpreting the prayer to mean that Jews should not convert to Christ then you have a serious problem. And yes btw Cardinal Casper himself has said many such things.
P
pnewton
Guest
Most of it, yes. Then why did you change the wording in the title?
U
una_fides
Guest
Here is what the Church teaches concerning infallibility and how to understand her teachings:
Vatican I, infallible General Council
- For the doctrine of the faith which God has revealed is put forward
- not as some philosophical discovery capable of being perfected by human intelligence,
- but as a divine deposit committed to the spouse of Christ to be faithfully protected and infallibly promulgated.
- Hence, too,that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.
- If anyone says that
- it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the church which is different from that which the church has understood and understands:
For the holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter- not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine,
- but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.
This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this see so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine. Thus the tendency to schism is removed and the whole church is preserved in unity, and, resting on its foundation, can stand firm against the gates of hell.
we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that- when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,
- that is, when,
- **in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, **
- **in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, **
- **he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church, **
- he possesses,
- by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,
- t**hat infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. **
- **Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable. **
Notice the requirements for papal infallibility are that the pope 1) as the teacher of all Christians 2) defines a doctrine 3) concerning faith or morals 4) to be held by the whole Church.
All these are clearly met in the definition of faith given at Florence that begins with the following words that clearly state the popes intentions to teach what the entire Church believes concerning a particular dogma of the faith.
“The sacrosanct Roman Church…firmly believes, professes, and proclaims…”
ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/FLORENCE.HTM
J
JReducation
Guest
I have bad news for you. I studied at the North American College in Rome. It’s a pretty orthodox school.
You seem to know more than I do about how I approached my studies and who my professors were or how they taught theology.
I’m sorry, but this conversation is going nowhere. Let’s agree to terminate our exchange here at this point. I’m not here to debate with you. I share what I know and I leave it at that. It’s up to you to accept it or not. It’s not up to me to persuade you. I was told to tell you the truth, not to convince you.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
U
una_fides
Guest
Vatican II also clearly teaches that the dogmatic teachings from General Councils in union with the pope are infallible:
Lumen Gentium #25
Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held.(40*) This is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church, whose definitions must be adhered to with the submission of faith.(41*)
And this infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine of faith and morals, extends as far as the deposit of Revelation extends, which must be religiously guarded and faithfully expounded. And this is the infallibility which the Roman Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith,(166) by a definitive act he proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals.(42*) And therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of others, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment. For then the Roman Pontiff is not pronouncing judgment as a private person, but as the supreme teacher of the universal Church, in whom the charism of infallibility of the Church itself is individually present, he is expounding or defending a doctrine of Catholic faith.(43*) The infallibility promised to the Church resides also in the body of Bishops, when that body exercises the supreme magisterium with the successor of Peter. To these definitions the assent of the Church can never be wanting, on account of the activity of that same Holy Spirit, by which the whole flock of Christ is preserved and progresses in unity of faith.(44*)
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_...s/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html
JReducation, can you please cite your source that claims that the definitions from the General Council of Florence are not infallible and where it gets this notion that when the Church teaches that something is the faith of the Church in a General Council that it’s just a “pastoral” teaching?
I suggest reading this Catholic Encyclopedia article on this topic: newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm
Lumen Gentium #25
Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held.(40*) This is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church, whose definitions must be adhered to with the submission of faith.(41*)
And this infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine of faith and morals, extends as far as the deposit of Revelation extends, which must be religiously guarded and faithfully expounded. And this is the infallibility which the Roman Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith,(166) by a definitive act he proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals.(42*) And therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of others, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment. For then the Roman Pontiff is not pronouncing judgment as a private person, but as the supreme teacher of the universal Church, in whom the charism of infallibility of the Church itself is individually present, he is expounding or defending a doctrine of Catholic faith.(43*) The infallibility promised to the Church resides also in the body of Bishops, when that body exercises the supreme magisterium with the successor of Peter. To these definitions the assent of the Church can never be wanting, on account of the activity of that same Holy Spirit, by which the whole flock of Christ is preserved and progresses in unity of faith.(44*)
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_...s/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html
JReducation, can you please cite your source that claims that the definitions from the General Council of Florence are not infallible and where it gets this notion that when the Church teaches that something is the faith of the Church in a General Council that it’s just a “pastoral” teaching?
I suggest reading this Catholic Encyclopedia article on this topic: newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm
K
KingTheoden
Guest
I am only up to page 7, but I want to say that this is an excellent thread with outstanding contributions.
A general concern of mine is that when the faith (which includes prayers) are watered down, that has a very negative effect on conversions. This is because people will interpret the Church as weak or ‘changing’ its doctrine; thus say the converted, ‘why convert at all if they just change things?’
There is a difference between restating something out of concern for linguistic evolution and changing a prayer for the purposes of appeasing those upset with it (because it is directed at them). We know the difference when we see it. I’ll leave it at that.
Some comments seem to suggest that it is acceptable or even laudable to encourage Jews to be active in their religion. To this extent, such is very, very not orthodox for the same reason it is not a good thing to encourage active participation in Hindu temples. Both religions are incorrect. That much we can say confidently and with all charity of wishing to invite those unconverted to the zenith of truth and love: Jesus Christ.
To sum up, when we start worrying about what the world thinks of us, we begin to veer away from the right track.
A general concern of mine is that when the faith (which includes prayers) are watered down, that has a very negative effect on conversions. This is because people will interpret the Church as weak or ‘changing’ its doctrine; thus say the converted, ‘why convert at all if they just change things?’
There is a difference between restating something out of concern for linguistic evolution and changing a prayer for the purposes of appeasing those upset with it (because it is directed at them). We know the difference when we see it. I’ll leave it at that.
Some comments seem to suggest that it is acceptable or even laudable to encourage Jews to be active in their religion. To this extent, such is very, very not orthodox for the same reason it is not a good thing to encourage active participation in Hindu temples. Both religions are incorrect. That much we can say confidently and with all charity of wishing to invite those unconverted to the zenith of truth and love: Jesus Christ.
To sum up, when we start worrying about what the world thinks of us, we begin to veer away from the right track.
U
una_fides
Guest
If you were taught that the General Councils such as Florence and Vatican I were not infallible, then you should ask for your money back. If they are conclusions you drew on your own, then please do state so. You are not citing any sources other than saying you went to a seminary you think was orthodox and seem to think that because of that your conclusions cannot possibly err. I admire that you have studied the faith, but if what you believe on any particular teaching is true, then it should have nothing to hide when compared with what the Church has always taught and your understandings should be in tune with the same sense as the Church has always held.
U
una_fides
Guest
Great observations. I could not agree with you more.
U
una_fides
Guest
Who told you to tell me “the truth”? If you do not wish to continue the conversation after I cited the Church’s constant teachings and if you do not wish to offer up a defense for your claims or even any sources, than that’s up to you.
U
una_fides
Guest
I thought I sufficiently explained my initial understanding that for the Jews to “continue to grow…in faithfulness to his covenant” seems to say that the Jews should continue to follow their old covenant because they obviously have not embraced the new so which covenant could this prayer be referring? I was wondering if it was heretical to pray that because I read a couple people say that it was, and that we now have a heretical prayer in our liturgy. After discussing this topic on this thread I now see that it could possibly be understood as praying that they will grow in faithfulness to Gods one covenant with mankind of which they are faithful in following what truths they have retained and by following those teachings they could evevtually grow into accepting Christ. This interpretation is a bit of a stretch but is the only way to understand it as not contradicting the faith. The obvious problem remains however that the prayer is very vague and as a result misleading and very easily understood as it often is as saying that the jews should just continue to follow their religion and do not need to convert to Christ when the Church clearly teaches that they do.
D
diggerdomer
Guest
Vatican I spoke of papal infallibility, which is distinct from infallibilty exercised by an ecumenical Council. So citing Vatican I does not prove the Church considers the statement from Florence as being taught infallibly. Vatican I only addressed papal infallibility, it wasn’t until Vatican II that infallibly as exercised by an ecumenical council or by the bishops united with the Pope teaching while not gathered at an ecumenical council.
The citation from the Catholic Encyclopedia is not as helpful as it was written 50 years before Vatican II, so again it does not address ecumenical councils teaching infallibly (nor the Pope and bishops exercising infallibility when united in teaching though not gathered in council).
Yes, ecumenical councils can exercise infallibility, but nowhere is it clearly stated which councils did or what teachings of which councils are considered as being taught infallibly
You should also consider Canon Law.749. vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2H.HTM
Where has the Church made “manifestly evident” that any ecumenical council taught infallibly?
Regardless, Papal and Conciliar teaching warrant our adherence, we are obliged to assent. Infallibility is in this sense rather moot.
U
una_fides
Guest
Conciliar infallibility has been understood in the Church since its beginning, and Vatican II did not invent this doctrine; it merely put it into writing in a General Council. If General Councils were not infallible, then how would you know that Papal Infallibility is an infallible truth? That the Church when gathered together in a General Council in union with the pope is infallible is rooted itself in Scripture, as in the first Church Council at Jerusalem the inspired author of Scripture reports the apostles saying, “It has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us.”
The citation from the Catholic Encyclopedia (CE) written before Vatican II clearly explains that General Councils are infallible, and Vatican II did not define any new teachings, as Paul VI repeatedly explained. I’m guessing you haven’t read the CE article yet. No General Council was needed to explain that General Councils are infallible, as the Church has always understood this fact. Here is the relevant section on Conciliar infallibility:
“That an ecumenical council which satisfies the conditions above stated is an organ of infallibility will not be denied by anyone who admits that the Church is endowed with infallible doctrinal authority. How, if not through such an organ, could infallible authority effectively express itself, unless indeed through the pope? If Christ promised to be present with even two or three of His disciples gathered together in His name (Matthew 18:20), a fortiori He will be present efficaciously in a representative assembly of His authorized teachers; and the Paraclete whom He promised will be present, so that whatever the council defines may be prefaced with the Apostolic formula, “it has seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us.” And this is the view which the councils held regarding their own authority and upon which the defender of orthodoxy insisted. The councils insisted on their definitions being accepted under pain of anathema, while St. Athanasius, for example, says that “the word of the Lord pronounced by the ecumenical synod of Nicaea stands for ever” (Ep. ad Afros, n. 2) and St. Leo the Great proves the unchangeable character of definitive conciliar teaching on the ground that God has irrevocably confirmed its truth “universae fraternitatis irretractabili firmavit assensu” (Ep. 120, 1).”
newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm#IIIA
The article goes on to explain that the Anglicans opposed the Church’s teaching on Conciliar infallibility through denying the teachings are correct until accepted by the people, so clearly the Church was teaching that General Councils are infallible long before Vatican II.
It does state which teachings fall under the category of infallibility though it did not list every one. First, if the Church defines a teaching under the pain of anathema, then clearly it is infallible. Hence, the doctrinal canons of General Councils are infallible. Second, in the content of the Council’s writings there can be some theological explanations as to why a particular teaching is true. I remember reading that these explanations are not safeguarded from error. However, the definitive teachings themselves most certainly are infallible.
U
una_fides
Guest
How much more manifestly evident can you get than by beginning with the words “The sacrosanct Roman Church…firmly believes, professes, and proclaims…”? It is most clear that the Church in this case was safeguarded from error in her teachings to all the faithful as to what the Church “firmly believes, professes, and proclaims.” The Church cannot firmly believe, profess, and proclaim one thing one day and then change it the next. Once the Church in a General Council in union with the pope has definitively defined a doctrine and stated that it is a part of the faith of the Church, then all the faithful are bound to accept this teaching de fide and not merely on the guise of some temporal obedience.
I also suggest you re-read the section of canon law to which you were referring:
Can. 749 §1. By virtue of his office, the Supreme Pontiff possesses infallibility in teaching when as the supreme pastor and teacher of all the Christian faithful, who strengthens his brothers and sisters in the faith, he proclaims by definitive act that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held.
§2. The college of bishops also possesses infallibility in teaching when the bishops gathered together in an ecumenical council exercise the magisterium as teachers and judges of faith and morals who declare for the universal Church that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held definitively; or when dispersed throughout the world but preserving the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter and teaching authentically together with the Roman Pontiff matters of faith or morals, they agree that a particular proposition is to be held definitively.
§3. No doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident.
So to clarify what must be manifestly evident is that the Church agreed that a particular position was to be held definitively. Canon law is not stating that the teaching itself must be manifestly evident that it is infallible but rather the definitive nature of the text itself is what determines infallibility. When any teaching that comes from a General Council is prefaced with the wording that the Church believes, teaches, and professes it, then it is certainly manifestly evident that particular position was to be held definitively. There is no wiggle room in their definition or in the definitive nature of the wording itself.
The reason why people attack that the teachings from Florence are infallible is that they want others to think that the Church has changed her position on these dogmas and their understanding since then. Such change of position is impossible, as the Church is not a Church of novelty, but is a Church based on Tradition, which means she is bound to be faithful to what has been handed on to her and to what she has previously defined as being included in that Tradition.
U
una_fides
Guest
Also keep in mind that the section of canon law continues to state the following:
Can. 750 §1. A person must believe with divine and Catholic faith all those things contained in the word of God, written or handed on, that is, in the one deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn magisterium of the Church or by its ordinary and universal magisterium which is manifested by the common adherence of the Christian faithful under the leadership of the sacred magisterium; therefore all are bound to avoid any doctrines whatsoever contrary to them.
§2. Each and every thing which is proposed definitively by the magisterium of the Church concerning the doctrine of faith and morals, that is, each and every thing which is required to safeguard reverently and to expound faithfully the same deposit of faith, is also to be firm-ly embraced and retained; therefore, one who rejects those propositions which are to be held definitively is opposed to the doctrine of the Catholic Church.
vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2H.HTM
Can. 750 §1. A person must believe with divine and Catholic faith all those things contained in the word of God, written or handed on, that is, in the one deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn magisterium of the Church or by its ordinary and universal magisterium which is manifested by the common adherence of the Christian faithful under the leadership of the sacred magisterium; therefore all are bound to avoid any doctrines whatsoever contrary to them.
§2. Each and every thing which is proposed definitively by the magisterium of the Church concerning the doctrine of faith and morals, that is, each and every thing which is required to safeguard reverently and to expound faithfully the same deposit of faith, is also to be firm-ly embraced and retained; therefore, one who rejects those propositions which are to be held definitively is opposed to the doctrine of the Catholic Church.
vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2H.HTM
D
diggerdomer
Guest
I know what the 1913 encyclopedia says, and I understand what you think about infallibility. I just can’t find any current Church teaching to support your claims.
The New Catholic Encyclopedia (i.e. an updated one to the one you keep citing) was published in 2003 and says this, in part, in its article on infallibility:
Its entry on ecumenical councils only refers to the article on infallibility and does not mention infallibility itself.
You may think conciliar infallibility has been understood by the Church from its beginning, but I don’t know of any historical evidence to support that (if you do, please share) and I don’t know anywhere that the Church claims that is true. It’s an opinion. Doesn’t matter to me if one holds it or not, I just don’t think it’s correct to say the Church teaches it as fact.
Using the word anathema is hardly a guarantee of infallibility being exercised.
- Status