On the supposed convenience of Papal Infallibility (As Protestants would claim)

  • Thread starter Thread starter TommyT1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

TommyT1

Guest
Throughout Church history it was taught that the Pope had a certain infallibility, but it wasn’t until 1870 that infallibility was finally defined and the conditions for it were made certain. For many non-Catholics, it seems very convenient that the Church took so long to define an essential principle that has been controverted for over a millennia and has caused many schisms. I would propose that because even though the Catholic Church understood that the Pope had infallibility due to Tradition and Scripture, that it was up to Catholic theologians to discover the nature of this principle.

Is this a valid way to explain the Church’s seemingly neglectful timing of defining Papal infallibility? Why did it take so long?
 
Last edited:
Human disobedience has always caused trouble in the Church. Look at Paul’s letters! Looking back through history, it is clear that certain doctrines and principles have been believed from the beginning. We are not a faith of written instructions - although we now have them. It is only when heresy arises that the Church is forced to act. Example: the “God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God” in the Nicene creed? It was not always there. It was added and the creed was thereafter known as the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. The rampant heresy of Arianism forced the Church to declare for all time that Jesus is an eternal Divine Person - which Arius denied. Arius had an incredible number of followers and divided the Church for perhaps 400 years!

Once Church authority was denied in 1500s Europe, the pope also had to be denied. But, the phrase “Rome has spoken” has settled disputes since probably the first or (more likely) second century. It has always been established fact, and the scriptures bear this out - if one actually reads them without glossing. John 21 in particular.

Same with the immaculate conception. Soon after the spirit of rebellion took over and divided the Church in the 1500s, the assault on Mary increased. The devil is prevented from doing this, so he incited certain rebellious men to do his dirty work for him.
 
Last edited:
So when an essential principle is taught in the Church but is not controverted by heresy, then the Church will entrust the faith of the laity and not formally define it because it is not demanded to.

I consider myself a devout Catholic who wants to guide others to the truth and therefore the Catholic Church. Please excuse my skepticism but I do desire to put down any legitimate objection to the Church that can be offered. I demand the most profound kind of answers to the objections to the faith that I belong to and love so deeply.

Anyways back to the subject, a objection can be made that the Church’s decisions to not define certain principles until they are controverted to be a lack of foresight on her part. Why couldn’t it just define it the first century and therefore (supposedly) avoid any future controversy?
 
Your best argument in favor of Catholicism is to ask: where did Jesus teach bible alone?

Protestantism rose and fails utterly and completely on that single fact.

Jesus founded a Church and sent Apostles.
 
Look, I have known for awhile that Apolitical succession is probably the strongest argument (or proof) for Catholicism, but that is not what I am asking for here. I am asking about why the Church decides to define principals only when they are put under controversy. Is it to entrust a certain amount of faith to the laity because they themselves are not being challenged about and therefore their faith in it doesn’t need to be strengthened?
Is leaving a little bit of ambiguity not harmful to the faith of its followers, or is it because the Church did not definitively know the complete nature of said principle and therefore must discover what its full nature is?
 
The mission of the Church is not to set everything in stone! It is to proclaim the Gospel of Christ. Period.

Disobedient man messed that up, and the Church takes her time in responding. Don’t defend! Turn the tables and make bible believers defend their radical departure from the Church Christ founded. Attack the lack of Protestant foundation. They have none.

Call Dr. David Anders at his EWTN radio show “Called to Communion.”

Sorry if I have once again failed to answer. My bad.
 
Thank you for reminding me that everything needs to be explained, but Papal infallibility is an essential part of the faith. If it cannot be sustained, then everything we thought about Christ’s divinity would just be myth. However, I am confident that this doctrine can be proven and that I will find the answers.

I know I have asked a tough question, but don’t feel discouraged that you did not directly answered it. It is a great sign of humility about how much you and I know. The Catholic Church is filled the most gifted and intelligent theologians and thinkers that no other religion can hold a candle to. I have faith that there are answers and God will make them known to those who look. Some principles need the supernatural gift of faith to be believed and maybe Papal infallibility is one.

Thank you po18guy and God bless you!
 
I have not closed on this subject, please other people respond, I am open to more (name removed by moderator)ut.
 
Last edited:
Not everything was defined in the first century but it does not mean that it was not believed. Admittedly two thousand years is a long time. We did not have hard dics those days and writing documents were done painstakingly. Just imagine how much a singly papyrus could handle. And then there was the rain and the shine, flood and volcanoes, not to mention very few could read and write.

Church Council does not write everything down. They are to convene when specific issue arise or to address the prevailing condition against the Church that she need to spell out and put in writing her belief. Again it had to be written painstakingly, as such were legal documents. And what about the mode of transport those day?

The Pope is given and exercised infallibility, which is a charism, a gift, by virtue of his office, which was set by Jesus Christ.

He is given a ‘Key’ and ‘to bind and to loose’. That too would necessitate infallibilty by the power of the Holy Spirit.

Of course, not everything the Pope says or does are infallible but except in matter if faith and moral, which never change.

God bless.
 
Salutations,
As you know politics and religion do not move fast in decision making. They came to conclusion. ExCathedra hasn’t been used in our time much. I recall something when I was little. If church said, “ JUMP!”
I jumped. Now, I’m a semi-educated stubborn fool.
I’m not going against any ExCathedra but I don’t agree w all church teachings. Like Jesus wasn’t born on Dec. 25th. It was late Oct. or sometime in Nov. It wasn’t in Year 1AD. Or 0?? It was 3 BC.
The wisemen didn’t come till He was 2yo.
It’s like the time when your parents told you, THERE IS NO SANTA!”
Love and adoration goes to God. The church gets respect and honor.
I’m Christs love
Tweedlealice
 
Good to remember that the Pope does not rule in a vacuum. He is not an autocrat, as many mistakenly believe. He is always in full communion with the college of Cardinals. And, good to remind doubters that infallibility is strictly limited to the subjects of faith and mortals. Also, I remind them that infallible statements are rare - the last occurring in 1950. Have a look at just how infrequent they are:
Tome to Flavian, Pope Leo I, 449, on the two natures in Christ, received by the Council of Chalcedon;
Letter of Pope Agatho, 680, on the two wills of Christ, received by the Third Council of Constantinople;
Benedictus Deus, Pope Benedict XII, 1336, on the beatific vision of the just after death rather than only just prior to final judgment;
Cum occasione, Pope Innocent X, 1653, condemning five propositions of Jansen as heretical;
Auctorem fidei, Pope Pius VI, 1794, condemning seven Jansenist propositions of the Synod of Pistoia as heretical;
Ineffabilis Deus, Pope Pius IX, 1854, defining the Immaculate Conception;
Munificentissimus Deus, Pope Pius XII, 1950, defining the Assumption of Mary.
Click to expand...
Always to settle disputes, or in response to heresy. The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church does not have changing beliefs, or the doctrine of the day, or even the decade.

In fact, each founder, each leader of any Protestant denomination, and each individual bible believer, practices infallibility, even if they do not claim it. They firmly believe that their personal interpretation of the scriptures is infallible. Apologist John Martignoni poses that dilemma to them constantly.

Now, those who oppose papal infallibility can easily debunk the Catholic Church by simply demonstrating an error in faith or morals on the part of any infallible declaration. Not even the reformers dared try that.
 
This notion that “Throughout Church history it was taught that the Pope had a certain infallibility” can’t be accurate. I’d like to see a reference to such a teaching – by anyone – say, pre-Nicaea.
 
To understand why the Church definitively confirmed this dogma when it did, one has to understand what was going on in the 19th century. During this period, Europe especially was being de-Christianized as Rationalism/Liberalism/Naturalism gained steam (ie movements that denied the necessity of faith or religion or at least its relevance to public life). Major questions arose concerning the relationship between the Church and civil society and between faith and reason.

The First Vatican Council was called to address these issues, but it was cut short when Rome was invaded. It produced a document directly on faith and reason, and one on the Pope that was to be part of a series of documents on the nature of the Church, but it never got to those (Vatican II made heavy use of the produced drafts in the document Lumen Gentium, especially concerning the episcopate).

An error being propagated at the time was that the dogmatic judgments of the Church did not deserve the assent of faith, but rather should be accepted or rejected based only on reason. Since only something without the possibility of error is worthy of the assent of faith, the Council needed to define when the Church was infallible.

Again, it just happened to produce its teaching on the Pope first, but never got to the rest of the Church (again, Vatican II would finish this task ultimately).
 
Last edited:
You’re correct–you’ll mostly see references to the infallibility of the particular Church of Rome (of which the Pope is bishop).

The infallibility of the Pope is a logical inference from the dogmas as to the infallibility and indefectibility of the whole Church and the primacy of the Bishop of Rome.

In other words, if the whole Church cannot fall into error, and the Bishop of Rome has the authority to make make the final, unappealable, dogmatic judgment for the whole Church, then such judgments also must be infallible.

Likewise, pre-Nicea. St. Irenaeus taught with respect to the Church of Rome, “For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church” (Against Heresies Book III)

Again, if all churches must agree with Rome, then Rome must be infallible–if it were in error, and the other churches agreed, the whole Church would fall into error. And since the Pope is the head of the Church of Rome, it follows that his definitive decisions as to the faith of that Church must be without error.
 
Last edited:
Thank you for the answer, but did the Church already know the conditions of infallibility before the Vatican councils?

I think it would make sense why the Church doesn’t need to authoritatively define its principles beliefs until they are controverted because we are asked to obey the Church’s teaching whether we agree with them or not. Also, just because something is not infallibly defined doesn’t mean it is false, infallibility is meant to be used for the purpose of reminding heresy of the Church’s God-given authority.

Would that be the correct inference of infallibility? Sorry that I asked two questions.
 
Theologians had been investigating the nature of it for centuries. As I mentioned in a prior post, papal infallibility was deduced from the infallibility of the Church and is strictly tied to it–so in general, there was always the sense that the Pope was not personally infallible in all he said or did, but rather only when he made judgments that were equivalent to those of the whole Church. Here’s how St. Francis de Sales explained it in the late 16th century in Chapter XIV of his “Catholic Controversy:”

It turns out it’s too long to post, but here is a link scroll to chapter XIV for the treatment on infallibility:
https://klaravonassisi.wordpress.com/2009/01/05/the-authority-of-the-pope-parts-xii/

You’ll see a good explanation of the “ex cathedra” language and the rationale behind it.
 
Last edited:
Genesis315 said:
Again, if all churches must agree with Rome, then Rome must be infallible–if it were in error, and the other churches agreed, the whole Church would fall into error. And since the Pope is the head of the Church of Rome, it follows that his definitive decisions as to the faith of that Church must be without error.
Click to expand...
If this is the case it seems like 4/5ths of the Church did fall apart. As they didn’t agree with Rome…

It’s not my belief but that’s what I am getting from this post?
 
Why do you say 4/5s? I don’t believe 4/5s of the particular Churches did so (a particular Church being the bishop and his flock), but only 4 of the eastern Patriarchates (which were not of divine origin, and which were by no means of equal significance at the time, all being essentially reduced to vicariates of Constantinople–which was itself under the heavy influence of the imperial power).
 
Last edited:
Genesis315 said:
which were not of divine origin, and which were by no means of equal significance at the time,
Click to expand...
Okay I have many questions regarding that paragraph but I do need to know your meaning by this one?

Please feel free to explain fully?
 
They should change it to “epic fail ability” because minor mistakes (can’t think of any) won’t stand out anyway. Besides, I am more interested in some of the positives.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top