Desiring with an ardent desire to liberate the Holy Land from the hands of the ungodly, we decree with the advice of prudent men who are fully familiar with the circumstances of the times, and with the approval of the council, that all who have taken the cross and have decided to cross the sea, hold themselves so prepared that they may, on June 1 of the year after next (1217), come together in the Kingdom of Sicily, some at Brundusium and others at Messana, where, God willing, we [the Pope, Innocent III] will be present personally to order and to bestow on the Christian army the divine and Apostolic blessing
A Deist is using this statement as an example to show me that the idea of Papal infallibility is false, because this statement was for Fourth Crusade and Blessed Pope John Paul II made a statement declaring that the Church apologized for this Crusade, therefore there is a contradiction. Can anyone help me make a rebuttal on this?—Holy Land Decrees of the Fourth Council of the Lateran (source for translation)
If I’m not mistaken, the goal of the 4th Crusade was for the Crusader army to land in Egypt with Cairo as their target. It was their naval supplier the Venetians that decided to use that army as their personal force and have it sack the city of Constantinople.A Deist is using this statement as an example to show me that the idea of Papal infallibility is false, because this statement was for Fourth Crusade and Blessed Pope John Paul II made a statement declaring that the Church apologized for this Crusade, therefore there is a contradiction. Can anyone help me make a rebuttal on this?
I read this somewhere aswell.Also didn’t the Pope at that time upon hearing about the Crusaders sacking Constantinople have them all Excommunicated for their actions?
There’s absolutely NO contradiction. Your deist acquaintance is confusing impeccability with infallibility, I’d guess.A Deist is using this statement as an example to show me that the idea of Papal infallibility is false, because this statement was for Fourth Crusade and Blessed Pope John Paul II made a statement declaring that the Church apologized for this Crusade, therefore there is a contradiction. Can anyone help me make a rebuttal on this?
A far better argument showing papal infallibility to be false is the whole Galileo fiasco.A Deist is using this statement as an example to show me that the idea of Papal infallibility is false, because this statement was for Fourth Crusade and Blessed Pope John Paul II made a statement declaring that the Church apologized for this Crusade, therefore there is a contradiction. Can anyone help me make a rebuttal on this?
I like how the Saints Alive! pilot episode covered that this morning with the works of St. Robert Bellarmine.A far better argument showing papal infallibility to be false is the whole Galileo fiasco.
Of course not.A far better argument showing papal infallibility to be false is the whole Galileo fiasco.
As already pointed out, you need to be clear on the definition of papal infallibility.A Deist is using this statement as an example to show me that the idea of Papal infallibility is false, because this statement was for Fourth Crusade and Blessed Pope John Paul II made a statement declaring that the Church apologized for this Crusade, therefore there is a contradiction. Can anyone help me make a rebuttal on this?
Ha, tell Robert Sungenis and the other Catholic geocentrists that.Of course not.
The Pope never gave any teaching regarding beliefs of Galileo. Thus there can be no way it could prove papal infallibility to be false.
Believe what you want to believe, but simple fact is that heliocentrism was declared a formal heresy as it was expressly contradictory to divine revelation.The Pope never condemned or taught that his theories were false. He may have gone to far in agreeing to a house arrest, but he certainly never taught, as head of the Church, that Galileo’s theories were incompatible with divine revelation.
Robert Sungenis and the other Catholic geocentrists will tell you that the Pope gave no formal teaching on Gallileo’s theories. Galileo was using his science to disprove the Bible. He was told not to teach his theories of heliocenticism until it could be demonstrated to be true, and was permitted to continue his research.Ha, tell Robert Sungenis and the other Catholic geocentrists that.
The simple fact is you can’t find any official documentation to support such a lie, just the usual myths by anti-Catholics.Believe what you want to believe, but simple fact is that heliocentrism was declared a formal heresy as it was expressly contradictory to divine revelation.
Where is the matter of faith and morals in this statement? That is a prerequisite of any infallible statement whether by pope or by a General Council. Without it your deist doesn’t have prayer. Tell him “nice try but no cigar.”A Deist is using this statement as an example to show me that the idea of Papal infallibility is false, because this statement was for Fourth Crusade and Blessed Pope John Paul II made a statement declaring that the Church apologized for this Crusade, therefore there is a contradiction. Can anyone help me make a rebuttal on this?
And of course John Paul II didnt make an infallible statement so their couldnt be any contradiction even if the two statements did contradict.A Deist is using this statement as an example to show me that the idea of Papal infallibility is false, because this statement was for Fourth Crusade and Blessed Pope John Paul II made a statement declaring that the Church apologized for this Crusade, therefore there is a contradiction. Can anyone help me make a rebuttal on this?
Wrong, Sungenis does think geocentrism was taught infallibly.Robert Sungenis and the other Catholic geocentrists will tell you that the Pope gave no formal teaching on Gallileo’s theories. Galileo was using his science to disprove the Bible. He was told not to teach his theories of heliocenticism until it could be demonstrated to be true, and was permitted to continue his research.
ungenis seems to also add that he believes the teaching is infallible based on Lumen Gentium’s teaching about the sense of the faithful.
Sungenis writes, LUMEN GENTIUM: THE WHOLE BODY CANNOT ERR
"Perhaps the most signifigant reason why the doctrine of geocentrism should be considered infallible comes, quite surprisingly, from one of the more modern declarations concerning the teaching of the Church. Earlier we quoted from Lumen Gentium 25 to show that catholics are required to give obiedience to both infallible and non-infallible teachings of the Church. Yet Lumen Gentium contains an even more signifigant requirement for obiedience in regards to geocentric doctrine, and it certainly seems to make the doctrine infallible. It is stated in paragraph 12
The holy People of God shares also in Christ’s prophetic office : it spreads abroad a living witness of him, especially by a life and love and by offering to God a sacrifice of praise, the fruit of lips praising His name. (emphasis Sungeis’) THE WHOLE BODY OF THE FAITH WHO HAVE AN ANNOINTING THAT COMES FROM THE HOLYONE CANNOT ERR IN MATTERS OF BELIEF. This characteristic is shown in the supernatural appreciation of the faith (sensus fidei) of the whole people, when, “from the bishops to the last of the faithful” they manifest a universal consent in matters of faith and morals…
Sungenis continues(his words), " Since it is a fact that the “People of God,” which includes “the bishops to the last of the faithful,” have believed unanimously, firmly and without equivication in the doctrine of geocentrism from the begginning of the Catholic church and throughout two millenia, and who " guided by the sacred teaching authority" to do so, this belief necessarily fulfills the criteria of Lumen Gentium 12 that these same People of God “cannot err.” It is an undeniable fact that all Fathers, all the medievals, all the bishops, priests, saints, doctors, theologians and the remaining Christian faithful of every nation believed in the doctrine of geocentrism. Additionally, three Popes and their Holy Offices officially confirmed this absolute consensus in the 17th century against a few mewn who, because of their own misguided convictions, sought todepart from that consensus, making the attempt in the wake of unproven scientific claims with the express purpose of reinstituting a novel and subjective interpretation of Holy Writ."
socrates58.blogspot.com/2010/11/robert-sungenis-opts-for-personal.htmlSungenis contunues, " As we have seen, even many years after modern science began to treat heliocentrism as a scientific fact, the Catholic faithful still maintained their vigilance for the geocentric doctrine. It has only been in the last one hundred years or so that this consensus waned." (these excerpts from Sungenis’s book can be found at the front of his web site–pages 42-47)
I would appreciate your thoughts. Are his a rguments strong that geocentrism was/is taught infallible by the magisterium.
Moreover, Sungenis wants to make a matter of infallibility a thing that is assuredly not (geocentrism). That’s why he feels so strongly about the issue, because he believes it is the infallible teaching of the Church; therefore, that individual Catholics are required to accept the view, and that apologists should defend it alongside transubstantiation or the Immaculate Conception of Mary.
I would think giving permission to kill other people because of their beliefs AND granting indulgences to people who do is a moral statement.Where is the matter of faith and morals in this statement? That is a prerequisite of any infallible statement whether by pope or by a General Council. Without it your deist doesn’t have prayer. Tell him “nice try but no cigar.”
Making a statement is not the same as a teaching. The intention to teach must be present elsewise any statement could be construed as infallible. The purpose of the formal doctrinal definition was to restrict the concept of infallibility as then believed to aI would think giving permission to kill other people because of their beliefs AND granting indulgences to people who do is a moral statement.
You might think so, but no. You clearly do not understand Papal infallibility. Certain criteria must be met, otherwise it’s not an infallible declaration. There have been two infallible Papal declarations. To be an infallible statement the Pope must be intentionally and voluntarily speaking with the clear intent to make a proclamation ex-cathedra.I would think giving permission to kill other people because of their beliefs AND granting indulgences to people who do is a moral statement.
That is not quite correct and depending on who one quotes the number could also be one. The point is that anytime the prequisites for infallibility are present then infallibility applies. It is not necessary for the pope to state that what he is saying is infallible. Although in todays world with microphones everywhere to capture the smallest sound bite it might be easy for something a pope might say to be broadcasted world wide even if he did not intend it to be. Thus the intention to teach to the whole church is necessary. A sound bite of a statement made by a pope could be broadcast to the whole world but if he did not intend to teach then it is not an infallible statement even if all other prerequisites are met.Ok, so there have only been two infallible statements from the Pope then? I’m happy to accept that