Maybe the Catholic church should change "Papal infallibility" doctrine

[Murmurs]

….
There is nothing circular about the reality of papal infallibility which was given by Christ to St Peter and his successor popes.
Incorrect reasoning by those who don’t know.

The impossibility of teaching error to the whole Church was given by Christ Himself recorded by His Apostles and disciples:
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
“I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." ( Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19)

Sole authority:
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).

The Council of Constance (1414-18), in its fourth and fifth sessions, declared for the superiority of council over Pope. However, these decisions never received papal approbation.

The understanding of papal inallibility was stated as a dogma when challenged by Gallicanism – the conciliarist theory lived on for hundreds of years. Conciliarism was formally condemned by the First Vatican Council (1869-70), which defined papal primacy, declaring that the Pope had "full and supreme jurisdiction over the universal Church, not only in things which belong to faith and morals, but also in those which relate to the discipline and government of the Church spread throughout the world.

With regard to both Popes and Councils it is the infallibility of the Church which is actually the decisive factor, the definition of Vatican I is very precise on this point and it uses very tightly constructed language. The doctrine must be of faith or morals and must be proposed as divinely revealed and to be held as such by all the faithful.

In more recent times, conciliarism has been renewed by those who appeal to a “magisterium of theologians” or “consensus of the people of God” against ordinary or even solemn teachings of the popes. (Etym. Latin concilium, council, assembly for consultation.)
Modern Catholic Dictionary by Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.
therealpresence.org/cgi-bin/getdefinition.pl

Thanks Abu

Again, I am being something of a advocatus diaboli about this, rather than having an actual qualm about the doctrine, but it still seems to me that it’s the Church that identifies itself with St Peter, (and the office of the papacy specifically) by virtue of the - nearly - incontestable fact that he went to Rome and was instrumental in founding the church there, etc etc, and because of Christ’s pun (which is undeniably a good one); … and moreover it’s the Church interpreting Scripture…

What I’m trying to suggest that is ordinarily one would say “well consider that Catholics have their three-legged stool; Scripture, tradition, and the Magisterium” - but they all operate and interact on only internal reference: T and M tell us how to read and think about S; S backs up T & M; S & M help us determine if Ts on any point are acceptable, etc, etc. Now for what it’s worth I am very happy to have that system because even if Christ did not say the specific words (though presumably in Aramaic) in Matthew’s Gospel, as we have them now, I do not believe He (as someone pointed out on this thread already) would either have lied about the matter nor been portrayed saying something He didn’t mean, by the writers of the Gospels, and on the internal-reference-frame, which I’m happy to accept, it all works and makes sense

Is the crux of the matter that at some point in this kind of conversation (I clearly have strange friends!), one just has to say that one has to believe in one part of it, whereupon everything does immediately make sense?

Re. the Council of Constance - given that no Pope gave his approval to its declaration of conciliarism - does this represent papal infallibility in action? I feel it kind of has to, because on a common-sense level of theology, as well as practicality, at least the principles of conciliarism seem sensible…and yet run at odds with actual doctrine.

 

[Abu]

Murmurs #24
Re. the Council of Constance - given that no Pope gave his approval to its declaration of conciliarism - does this represent papal infallibility in action? I feel it kind of has to, because on a common-sense level of theology, as well as practicality, at least the principles of conciliarism seem sensible…and yet run at odds with actual doctrine.

I agree that it indicates that aspect of infallibility that refuses to teach error.

Gallicanism became Conciliarism after the Great Western Schism, claiming the superiority of council over the Pope, and promoted by John Gerson (1363-1429) and Peter d’Ailly (1350-1420). The French Revolution drove the bishops into the arms of the Pope and dealt a mortal blow to Gallicanism, but the basic idea was still alive until the First Vatican Council formally condemned it in 1870.
catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=33692

The doctrine of Papal infallibility is found in Scripture (Mt 16:17-19; Jn 21: 15-17; Mt 28:19-20; 1 Tim 3:15), and for the final proposed definition of Vatican I there were 471 bishops for and 130 against; more than two-thirds bishops for. Sixty-six bishops then returned to their dioceses before the Public Session, but all eventually declared full acceptance of the defined doctrine. [See Dr Leslie Rumble, *Questions People Ask, Chevalier, 1975, p 159].

 

[JerryZ]

Thanks Abu

Again, I am being something of a advocatus diaboli about this, rather than having an actual qualm about the doctrine, but it still seems to me that it’s the Church that identifies itself with St Peter, (and the office of the papacy specifically) by virtue of the - nearly - incontestable fact that he went to Rome and was instrumental in founding the church there, etc etc, and because of Christ’s pun (which is undeniably a good one); … and moreover it’s the Church interpreting Scripture…

What I’m trying to suggest that is ordinarily one would say “well consider that Catholics have their three-legged stool; Scripture, tradition, and the Magisterium” - but they all operate and interact on only internal reference: T and M tell us how to read and think about S; S backs up T & M; S & M help us determine if Ts on any point are acceptable, etc, etc. Now for what it’s worth I am very happy to have that system because even if Christ did not say the specific words (though presumably in Aramaic) in Matthew’s Gospel, as we have them now, I do not believe He (as someone pointed out on this thread already) would either have lied about the matter nor been portrayed saying something He didn’t mean, by the writers of the Gospels, and on the internal-reference-frame, which I’m happy to accept, it all works and makes sense

Is the crux of the matter that at some point in this kind of conversation (I clearly have strange friends!), one just has to say that one has to believe in one part of it, whereupon everything does immediately make sense?

Re. the Council of Constance - given that no Pope gave his approval to its declaration of conciliarism - does this represent papal infallibility in action? I feel it kind of has to, because on a common-sense level of theology, as well as practicality, at least the principles of conciliarism seem sensible…and yet run at odds with actual doctrine.

We can read in the Gospels that Conciliarism was never the norm. Peter himself proclaimed after the first concilium (the 12 Apostles and other appointed Bishops) the first change in Doctrine in thousands of years since the time of Abraham, that to belong to the Church Christ had founded, NO circumcision was required of the Gentiles.

Therefore it follows that if a Council reaches a certain NEW doctrine that is NOT ratified by a Pope presiding that Council, then that doctrine is null and void.
Thus it is not circular logic, it is simply applying with prudence what has been handed down to us from Jesus Himself, who promised He would never leave us to our own devises. We were promised a Pillar and Foundation of Truth, not a quagmire of dissenting man made doctrines and traditions.

---

 

[spiderweb]

Thanks Abu

Again, I am being something of a advocatus diaboli about this, rather than having an actual qualm about the doctrine, but it still seems to me that it’s the Church that identifies itself with St Peter, (and the office of the papacy specifically) by virtue of the - nearly - incontestable fact that he went to Rome and was instrumental in founding the church there, etc etc, and because of Christ’s pun (which is undeniably a good one); … and moreover it’s the Church interpreting Scripture…

What I’m trying to suggest that is ordinarily one would say “well consider that Catholics have their three-legged stool; Scripture, tradition, and the Magisterium” - but they all operate and interact on only internal reference: T and M tell us how to read and think about S; S backs up T & M; S & M help us determine if Ts on any point are acceptable, etc, etc. Now for what it’s worth I am very happy to have that system because even if Christ did not say the specific words (though presumably in Aramaic) in Matthew’s Gospel, as we have them now, I do not believe He (as someone pointed out on this thread already) would either have lied about the matter nor been portrayed saying something He didn’t mean, by the writers of the Gospels, and on the internal-reference-frame, which I’m happy to accept, it all works and makes sense

Is the crux of the matter that at some point in this kind of conversation (I clearly have strange friends!), one just has to say that one has to believe in one part of it, whereupon everything does immediately make sense?

Re. the Council of Constance - given that no Pope gave his approval to its declaration of conciliarism - does this represent papal infallibility in action? I feel it kind of has to, because on a common-sense level of theology, as well as practicality, at least the principles of conciliarism seem sensible…and yet run at odds with actual doctrine.

It’s also important to keep in mind that the early church understood the primacy of Peter as the head of the church. Here are just a few samples of what they wrote freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1778742/posts . The decisions of later councils are consistent with the apostolic teaching and understanding first given by Christ, to the apostles, then to their successors. It’s not as if a thousand years later leaders in the church came up with their own interpretation of scripture and tradition to validate the claims of the primacy of Peter and papal infallibility as a power grab. No, this is the Christian faith which was handed on to them both by oral and written tradition.

Furthermore, just because it wasn’t dogmatically defined until much later doesn’t make it any less true. To make that argument, one must also say that the doctrine of the Trinity wasn’t true until it was dogmatized in 325 AD. Most Christians would not even consider that possibility. The truths were always there, but they were not always explicitly clear.