Papal infalibility

[Genesis315]

Yes the majority of catholics think it is ridiculous, and they ignore it, and I suspect most of them do not frequent these forums.It was a pope, around 150 years ago, that “decided” he was protected by the holy spirit in terms of doctrine.

Not true, this doctrine was explicitly defended for many centuries preceding 1870 and was at the very least implicit since apostolic times in the practice and teaching of the Church. Read the official relatios of the Council. Read the in depth defenses of this doctrine from Sts. Francis de Sales, Robert Bellarmine, and John Fisher from centuries before 1870; read how the early Fathers and Councils viewed the Church of Rome, pick up a copy of *Denzinger *to see plenty more decrees from Popes throughout the century defending the irreformable natrue of their pronoucements, etc.

If you look at that period of human history and what was happening culturally, it was the start of the secular era. Darwin came out 10 years previous, and the world was throwing a huge amount of valid and increculous doubt toward the entire religious establishment.

That’s very true, dogmas of the faith are often solemnly reaffirmed when they come after attack, but to claim that this doctrine was invented at that time is no different than claiming the divinity of Christ was invented at the Council of Nicea I, which is also manifestly untrue.

As an attempt to create some order, a pope, claimed he was protected by the holy spirit. It was put to a vote on the council, and most disagreed. It took the pope over a year to convince anyone, and that was eventually achieved by vote through coercion.(you will lose you place as bishop if you don’t agree)

This is completely untrue. The records of the Council are available for anyone to study.

The idea that the pope is infailable is a reaction to the world of science, that achieves infailablility due to its very method. Scientists, CAN and WILL lie but the scientific method does not.

This is completely false. The scientific method is quite old, yet, people applying it are constantly coming to different conclusions, theories are constantly being revised, etc. Divine revelation, however, is what it is. It is something given and then handed on, not something discovered.

The pope, had to find a way to counteract that. That Pope, by modern psychiatry, was also considered insane by the time he died.

Even if this were true, it is irrelevant. However, the slanders against that particular pope by his enemies are well documented as well.

**

Most people have no knowlege of how this doctrine came about.

**

If what you are saying is representative of most people’s knowledge, then I would have to agree.

I always find it ironic that atheists, who claim to demand tangible evidence for everything, believe things about religion that is not supported by any tangible evidence.

 

[Genesis315]

If Papal infallibility (the principle) is only 150 years old…

What made Luther leave the Church?

What caused the great schism of 1054?

• CB

good point

 

[Genesis315]

Anyway, for someone beginning with the false premise of atheism, such claims of inspiration or divine guidance will always be folly. But for Christians, the idea that God is active in human history is a reality. The idea that it is Christ who ultimately teaches and shepherds His flock is one of the foundational truths of our faith. The doctrine of papal infallibility simply reaffirms that we are led not by mere mortals, but by the Spirit of Truth. The same Spirit that inspired those who original gave us revelation, guided the teaching of it by Peter and the Apostles and their successors teaching in union with the successors of Peter.

Thus Christ said to Peter that it was not flesh and blood that revealed the truth to Him, but the Father in Heaven. It is the prayer of Christ for Peter’s faith that it fail not, so that he may confirm the brethren in the faith, that gives the charism of infallibility, not any merit of the Pope. The gifts of God for the good of His Church are just that, gifts–they are not contingent on the merits of the one receiving the gift. Even Caiphas and Balaam, when they were apostates, prophecied rightly.

 

[PJM]

{QUOTE=delberto;4366249}
Surely every catholic must have a little doubt as to the authenticity to the popes infalibility? Reply: Nope, not IF properly inderstood
Has the pope ever had to retract statements made by past popes?
Possiblly, bot never on matters of “faith and or morals,”
Does the pope truly believe when he speaks it is because he has a greater understanding of the lord than the rest of us mere mortals? Yes, IF speaking on matters of faith and morals."{/QUOTE}

Why?Thanks for asking:

The question before us is “can there be ‘an infallible proclamation’ out side of the bible?

The short answer is yes.

As a secondary note: All teachings are the Holy Father, relating to the RCC, are to be given assent and acceptance of faith, by all Catholics. In other words we are to accept and live his teachings.

Why is this? Why does the Pope have the right, indeed the mandate to speak to Gods children, on behalf of God Himself?

**Matt. 16:13-19 **
13 Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do men say that the Son of man is?” 14 And they said, “Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” 15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16 Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

First: we accept the fact that word’s have specific, “common” meeting to those giving utterance and to those being spoken to.

Second: We acknowledge that both those giving utterance, and those who have done the transcribing, are inspired by The Holy Spirit, (Jesus exempted because He too is God), to use specific words, phrases and locations. In other words, mere coincidence has no place in our discussion. We accept the facts that Jesus knew what He was doing, and that as God, He was incapable of lying.

Point One: Why did Jesus select the area of Caesarea Philippi, to make this enormously important appointment?

Reply: Caesarea Philippi is located in the northern part of Judea. The above quoted passage took place on a large hill, and was the location of a very large, and locally famous, Pagan Temple. As a “safeguard” the temple was build behind a huge protective ROCK.

Point Two: In O.T. biblical days it was common for cities to be walled and fortified. Further, they really did have a main gate, and there was a Key to the City, that really locked and unlocked the main gate.

Point Three: In the quoted bible passage: “I,” “you,” “my,” and “church” are all singular for very specific reasons. “Church” for example clearly, indisputably, shows God’s intent to start and Shepherd only “one church.”

Point Four: In every walled city there was a “King” which is the role Jesus assumes in this story. “Hail King of the Jews!”

Point Five: As one might expect, actually running the city was a whole lot like real work, so it was delegated to another, usually called the “Prime Minister.” So we will use that term for the one who actually ran the city, day in, and day out. The P.M. answered ONLY to “the King.” What the PM ordered done, was done, and what the PM forbid, was legally forbidden, and violators were punished by the PM.

Point Six: The terms, “To Bind and or To Loose” were legal and binding at law, Rabbinical Terms, known and accepted by all those Jesus was speaking too as authority to Govern.

Point Seven: Just as Jesus is the King in this story, Simon, Now “Peter” (Greek for “rock,”) is the new Prime Minister! As such he in given total and complete autonomous rule and daily governance of the New Church that Jesus has just created. “On this “rock” meaning the very person of Peter himself, “I” will build “my” church. Again Words Mean Something!

Point Eight: “I will give you” Peter the Key to the Kingdom of Heaven. PERIOD! This is God telling us this fact.

Point Nine: The power to govern is immediate, total, complete, unlimited and binding on all. Amen!

Point Ten: God knew what He was doing, Jesus knew what He was setting up, Peter and the Apostles understood exactly what was meant and accepted and lived in obedience, what God had ordained. We, my friend are to do no less.** “The gates of Hell shall not prevail against Her,” does not mean that sin cannot or for that matter, does not exist within Her. No, what is promised by God is two-fold. First, sin will not prevail! Second, God promised to send the Holy Spirit, as the guarantor of TRUTH, that any official pronouncement from “the chair of Peter,” on matters of Faith and or Morals, cannot, I repeat, cannot be in error, because God Himself say’s so.**

God’s Bless,

PJM m.c.

 

[By_His_Mercy]

Surely every catholic must have a little doubt as to the authenticity to the popes infalibility?
Has the pope ever had to retract statements made by past popes?
Does the pope truly believe when he speaks it is because he has a greater understanding of the lord than the rest of us mere mortals?

Perhaps it just more nonsense that alienates catholosism against the masses?

I think I was convinced of infallibility concering faith and morals by hindsight. Looking back, I don’t see the bishop of Rome making mistakes in these areas of doctrine. And the other major bishoprics (Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria) often had heretical bishops. So I got used to the idea of siding with the bishop of Rome as I studied theology and history.

God bless you,

 

[warpspeedpetey]

that is not what most Roman Catholics believe.
where do you get that?

papal infallibility, ex cathedra is based on the promises of Christ in Matthew chapter 16.

 

[fellowChristian]

We have this from Jesus himself, who promised the apostles and their successors the bishops, the magisterium of the Church:

**Luke 10:16 **

16"**The one who listens to you listens to Me, and the one who rejects you rejects Me; and he who rejects Me rejects the One who sent Me." **

and

**Matthew 18:18 **

18 "Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.

Christ instructed the Church to preach everything He taught.

**Matthew 28:19-20 **

19"Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,

20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I** am with you always, even to the end of the age." **

and promised the protection of the Holy Spirit

John 16:13

13"But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come.

That mandate and that promise guarantee the Church will never fall away from his teachings

Matthew 16:18

18 "I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.

1 Timothy 3:15

15 but in case I am delayed, I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the** church of the living God**, **the pillar and support of the truth. **

even if individual Catholics might.

Matthew 23

1 Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples,
2 saying: "The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the
** chair of Moses**;

3 therefore all that they tell you, do and observe,
but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them.

Augustine succinctly captured the ancient attitude when he remarked,
"Rome has spoken; the case is concluded" (Sermons 131, 10).

Catholic Answers
catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp

 

[elvisman]

I don’t believe in the infallibility of Pope, Church, ecumenical Councils, or of the episcopate in union with the Pope, simply because there is no reason to do so. Infallibility in teaching doctrine is in the eye of the beholder, which is why it impresses only those who believe in it.​

I wouldn’t call it nonsense, so much as non-sense: if you analyse it, it doesn’t work. It’s a nice theory, & it’s nice in theory: but it’s meaningless in practice - it has never yet stopped a persecution or a massacre: these things can always be rationalised so as to become good & holy acts. So it is useless. And that is just the beginning. IMHO, the definition of 1870 was a classic own goal, a blunder on a colossal scale, a disproof of the very idea that it defined. We have had to put up with the consequences ever since; thanks to Pius IX, we are trapped, so that we are doomed to venerate a colossal falsehood as though it were God’s truth. The moral results of this idea have been disastrous.

There you go again Gottle, spewing out your own brand of “Catholicism” which is nothing more than thinly-cloaked relativism.

Tell me, which part of John 16:13-15 don’t you understand?

If you don’t believe in a Dogma of the Catholic Church - don’t identify yourself as Catholic. This issue is not up for a vote.

 

[chris_molter]

Surely every catholic must have a little doubt as to the authenticity to the popes infalibility?

No, I don’t. And don’t call me Shirley.

 

[PJM]

We have this from Jesus himself, who promised the apostles and their successors the bishops, the magisterium of the Church:

**Luke 10:16 **

16"**The one who listens to you listens to Me, and the one who rejects you rejects Me; and he who rejects Me rejects the One who sent Me." **

and

**Matthew 18:18 **

18 "Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.

Christ instructed the Church to preach everything He taught.

**Matthew 28:19-20 **

19"Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,

20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I** am with you always, even to the end of the age." **

and promised the protection of the Holy Spirit

John 16:13

13"But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come.

That mandate and that promise guarantee the Church will never fall away from his teachings

Matthew 16:18

18 "I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.

1 Timothy 3:15

15 but in case I am delayed, I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the** church of the living God**, **the pillar and support of the truth. **

even if individual Catholics might.

Matthew 23

1 Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples,
2 saying: "The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the
** chair of Moses**;

3 therefore all that they tell you, do and observe,
but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them.

Augustine succinctly captured the ancient attitude when he remarked,
"Rome has spoken; the case is concluded" (Sermons 131, 10).

Catholic Answers
catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp

Reply
May I suggest one more, as evidence that this teaching has roots in the Old Testament?

Deut. 18:18 I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brethren; and I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him. 19 And whoever will not give heed to my words which he shall speak in my name, I myself will require it of him…

Very well done, Thanks

PJM m.c.

 

[Peter_J]

I don’t believe in the infallibility of Pope, Church, ecumenical Councils, or of the episcopate in union with the Pope, simply because there is no reason to do so.​

Well, as you yourself say later in the post:

We have had to put up with the consequences ever since;

We have had to, and we still have to, put up with the consequences. What I mean is, if Papal Infallibility was in fact dogmatically defined – which I believe it was, even if as Cardinal Newman said, the decision to dogmatically define it was unwise – then we can’t just say that there is no reason to believe it.

 

[PJM]

Well, as you yourself say later in the post:

We have had to, and we still have to, put up with the consequences. What I mean is, if Papal Infallibility was in fact dogmatically defined – which I believe it was, even if as Cardinal Newman said, the decision to dogmatically define it was unwise – then we can’t just say that there is no reason to believe it.

REPLY:

Code of Canon Law:

THE ROMAN PONTIFF

Can. 331 The bishop of the Roman Church, in whom continues the office given by the Lord uniquely to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be transmitted to his successors, is the head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ, and the pastor of the universal Church on earth. By virtue of his office he possesses supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he is always able to exercise freely

Can. 333 §1. By virtue of his office, the Roman Pontiff not only possesses power offer the universal Church but also obtains the primacy of ordinary power offer all particular churches and groups of them. Moreover, this primacy strengthens and protects the proper, ordinary, and immediate power which bishops possess in the particular churches entrusted to their care.

§3. No appeal or recourse is permitted against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff.

Can. 334 Bishops assist the Roman Pontiff in exercising his office. They are able to render him cooperative assistance in various ways, among which is the synod of bishops. The cardinals also assist him, as do other persons and various institutes according to the needs of the times. In his name and by his authority, all these persons and institutes fulfill the function entrusted to them for the good of all the churches, according to the norms defined by law

Can. 212 §1. Conscious of their own responsibility, the Christian faithful are bound to follow with Christian obedience those things which the sacred pastors, inasmuch as they represent Christ, declare as teachers of the faith or establish as rulers of the Church.

This is what we RCC’s believe and what we RCC’s must (no personal options) must do.

PJM m.c.

 

[Peter_J]

Code of Canon Law:

THE ROMAN PONTIFF

Can. 331 The bishop of the Roman Church, in whom continues the office given by the Lord uniquely to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be transmitted to his successors, is the head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ, and the pastor of the universal Church on earth. By virtue of his office he possesses supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he is always able to exercise freely

Can. 333 §1. By virtue of his office, the Roman Pontiff not only possesses power offer the universal Church but also obtains the primacy of ordinary power offer all particular churches and groups of them. Moreover, this primacy strengthens and protects the proper, ordinary, and immediate power which bishops possess in the particular churches entrusted to their care.

§3. No appeal or recourse is permitted against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff.

Can. 334 Bishops assist the Roman Pontiff in exercising his office. They are able to render him cooperative assistance in various ways, among which is the synod of bishops. The cardinals also assist him, as do other persons and various institutes according to the needs of the times. In his name and by his authority, all these persons and institutes fulfill the function entrusted to them for the good of all the churches, according to the norms defined by law

Can. 212 §1. Conscious of their own responsibility, the Christian faithful are bound to follow with Christian obedience those things which the sacred pastors, inasmuch as they represent Christ, declare as teachers of the faith or establish as rulers of the Church.

Thanks for the Canon Law quotes, PJM. Although I’m a little surprised to note that you didn’t quote any that mention Papal Infallibility, or the necessity of agreeing with it (b/c it’s a dogma).

No matter.

 

[Reepicheep]

Thanks for the Canon Law quotes, PJM. Although I’m a little surprised to note that you didn’t quote any that mention Papal Infallibility, or the necessity of agreeing with it (b/c it’s a dogma).

No matter.

You do understand that it was a Pope, exercising his authority as described in that quote, who declared that the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility is true and must be believed by all Catholics as a matter of faith?
…And yes, matter.

 

[Peter_J]

You do understand that it was a Pope, exercising his authority as described in that quote, who declared that the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility is true and must be believed by all Catholics as a matter of faith?

Wait, so Pope Pius IX was a Pope? Wow, I never knew that before. Thanks for setting me straight.

 

[PJM]

Thanks for the Canon Law quotes, PJM. Although I’m a little surprised to note that you didn’t quote any that mention Papal Infallibility, or the necessity of agreeing with it (b/c it’s a dogma).

Reply: Oop’s

Actually the 1984 Code does not specify “Papal Infallibility” however it is both assumed and (name removed by moderator)lied in Canon # 333…

"Can. 333 §1. By virtue of his office, the Roman Pontiff not only possesses power offer the universal Church but also obtains the primacy of ordinary power offer all particular churches and groups of them.

§3. No appeal or recourse is permitted against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff.

The actual Dogma was defined officially, but alway’s understood and practiced from the very time of Peter, in the document “Pastor Aetemus” from The First Vatican Council

           The First Vatican Council
          8 Dec. 1869 -- 20 Oct. 1870

Dogmatic Constition “Dei Filius”
on the Catholic Faith

Chapter 1
On the institution of the apostolic primacy in blessed Peter

1. We teach and declare that, according to the gospel evidence, a primacy of jurisdiction over the whole Church of God was immediately and directly promised to the blessed apostle Peter and conferred on him by Christ the lord.

4. To this absolutely manifest teaching of the Sacred Scriptures, as it has always been understood by the Catholic Church, are clearly opposed the distorted opinions of those who misrepresent the form of government which Christ the lord established in his Church and deny that Peter, in preference to the rest of the apostles, taken singly or collectively, was endowed by Christ with a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction.

Chapter 4.
On the infallible teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff

1. That apostolic primacy which the Roman Pontiff possesses as successor of Peter, the prince of the apostles, includes also the supreme power of teaching. This Holy See has always maintained this, the constant custom of the Church demonstrates it, and the ecumenical councils, particularly those in which East and West met in the union of faith and charity, have declared it.
2. So the fathers of the fourth Council of Constantinople, following the footsteps of their predecessors, published this solemn profession of faith:

What is more, with the approval of the second Council of Lyons, the Greeks made the following profession:
"The Holy Roman Church possesses the supreme and full primacy and principality over the whole Catholic Church. She truly and humbly acknowledges that she received this from the Lord himself in blessed Peter, the prince and chief of the apostles, whose successor the Roman Pontiff is, together with the fullness of power.

Then there is the definition of the Council of Florence:
“The Roman Pontiff is the true vicar of Christ, the head of the whole Church and the father and teacher of all Christians; and to him was committed in blessed Peter, by our lord Jesus Christ, the full power of tending, ruling and governing the whole Church.” [58]

1. It was for this reason that the bishops of the whole world, sometimes individually, sometimes gathered in synods, according to the long established custom of the Churches and the pattern of ancient usage referred to this Apostolic See those dangers especially which arose in matters concerning the faith.

6. 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.

Indeed, their apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable fathers and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors, for they knew very well that this See of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples:

1. 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.
2. But since in this very age when the salutary effectiveness of the apostolic office is most especially needed, not a few are to be found who disparage its authority, we judge it absolutely necessary to affirm solemnly the prerogative which the only-begotten Son of God was pleased to attach to the supreme pastoral office.

9. Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, 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, that 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.

Keep in mind that approved declairations from a Church Council have the same weight of authority as does Cannon Law and the Catecheism.

Hope this helps.
God bless,
PJM m.c.

 

[Peter_J]

I don’t believe in the infallibility of Pope, Church, ecumenical Councils, or of the episcopate in union with the Pope, simply because there is no reason to do so. Infallibility in teaching doctrine is in the eye of the beholder, which is why it impresses only those who believe in it.​

I wouldn’t call it nonsense, so much as non-sense: if you analyse it, it doesn’t work. It’s a nice theory, & it’s nice in theory: but it’s meaningless in practice - it has never yet stopped a persecution or a massacre: these things can always be rationalised so as to become good & holy acts. So it is useless. And that is just the beginning. IMHO, the definition of 1870 was a classic own goal, a blunder on a colossal scale, a disproof of the very idea that it defined. We have had to put up with the consequences ever since; thanks to Pius IX, we are trapped, so that we are doomed to venerate a colossal falsehood as though it were God’s truth. The moral results of this idea have been disastrous.

Although I can’t tell you that agreement with Papal Infallibility isn’t a requirement for being Catholic, I would like to quote the end of Cardinal Newman’s letter to the Duke of Norfolk:

 

[Peter_J]

…

The recognition, which I am here implying, of the existence of parties in the Church reminds me of what, while I have been writing these pages, I have all along felt would be at once the primâ facie and also the most telling criticism upon me. It will be said that there are very considerable differences in argument and opinion between me and others who have replied to Mr. Gladstone, and I shall be taunted with the evident breakdown, thereby made manifest, of that topic of glorification so commonly in the mouths of Catholics, that they are all of one way of thinking, while Protestant bodies are all at variance with each other, and by reason of that very variation of opinion can have no ground of certainty severally in their own.

This is a showy and serviceable retort in controversy; but it is nothing more. First, as regards the arguments which Catholics use, it has to be considered whether these are really incompatible with each other; if they are not, then surely it is generally granted by Protestants as well as Catholics, that two distinct arguments for the same conclusion, instead of invalidating that conclusion, actually strengthen it. And next, supposing the difference to be one of conclusions themselves, then it must be considered whether the difference relates to a matter of faith or to a matter of opinion. If a matter of faith is in question I grant there ought to be absolute agreement, or rather I maintain that there is; I mean to say that only one out of the statements put forth can be true, and that the other statements will be at once withdrawn by {345} their authors, by virtue of their being Catholics, as soon as they learn on good authority that they are erroneous. But if the differences which I have supposed are only in theological opinion, they do but show that after all private judgment is not so utterly unknown among Catholics and in Catholic Schools, as Protestants are desirous to establish.

I have written on this subject at some length in Lectures which I published many years ago, but, it would appear, with little practical effect upon those for whom they were intended. “Left to himself,” I say, “each Catholic likes and would maintain his own opinion and his private judgment just as much as a Protestant; and he has it and he maintains it, just so far as the Church does not, by the authority of Revelation, supersede it. The very moment the Church ceases to speak, at the very point at which she, that is, God who speaks by her, circumscribes her range of teaching, then private judgment of necessity starts up; there is nothing to hinder it … A Catholic sacrifices his opinion to the Word of God, declared through His Church; but from the nature of the case, there is nothing to hinder him having his own opinion and expressing it, whenever, and so far as, the Church, the oracle of Revelation, does not speak.” Note 2 ]

In saying this, it must not be supposed that I am denying what is called the pietas fidei , that is, a sense of the great probability of the truth of enunciations made by the Church, which are not formally and actually to be considered as the “Word of God.” Doubtless it is our {346} duty to check many a speculation, or at least many an utterance, even though we are not bound to condemn it as contrary to religious truth. But, after all, the field of religious thought which the duty of faith occupies, is small indeed compared with that which is open to our free, though of course to our reverent and conscientious, speculation.

I draw from these remarks two conclusions; first as regards Protestants,—Mr. Gladstone should not on the one hand declaim against us as having “no mental freedom,” if the periodical press on the other hand is to mock us as admitting a liberty of private judgment, purely Protestant. We surely are not open to contradictory imputations. Every note of triumph over the differences which mark our answers to Mr. Gladstone is a distinct admission that we do not deserve his injurious reproach that we are captives and slaves of the Pope.

Secondly, for the benefit of some Catholics, I would observe that, while I acknowledge one Pope, jure divino , I acknowledge no other, and that I think it a usurpation, too wicked to be comfortably dwelt upon, when individuals use their own private judgment, in the discussion of religious questions, not simply “abundare in suo sensu,” but for the purpose of anathematizing the private judgment of others.

I say there is only one Oracle of God, the Holy Catholic Church and the Pope as her head. To her teaching I have ever desired all my thoughts, all my words to be conformed; to her judgment I submit what I have now written, what I have ever written, not only {347} as regards its truth, but as to its prudence, its suitableness, and its expedience. I think I have not pursued any end of my own in anything that I have published, but I know well, that, in matters not of faith, I may have spoken, when I ought to have been silent.

And now, my dear Duke, I release you from this long discussion, and, in concluding, beg you to accept the best Christmas wishes and prayers for your present and future from
Your affectionate Friend and Servant,
JOHN HENRY NEWMAN.

From newmanreader.org/works/anglicans/volume2/gladstone/section10.html

 

[Reepicheep]

Wait, so Pope Pius IX was a Pope? Wow, I never knew that before. Thanks for setting me straight.

You’re welcome.

…Looking back, it looks like I mistook the intent of your post. My apologies.

 

[guanophore]

Yes the majority of catholics think it is ridiculous, and they ignore it, and I suspect most of them do not frequent these forums.

No, I should think not. “Catholics” who don’t accept the teachings of the Church are actually apostate. Some have become Protestants and don’t know it.

It was a pope, around 150 years ago, that “decided” he was protected by the holy spirit in terms of doctrine.

Do you realize this is a falsehood, or did you post this statement in ignorance?

If you look at that period of human history and what was happening culturally, it was the start of the secular era. Darwin came out 10 years previous, and the world was throwing a huge amount of valid and increculous doubt toward the entire religious establishment.

As an attempt to create some order, a pope, claimed he was protected by the holy spirit. It was put to a vote on the council, and most disagreed. It took the pope over a year to convince anyone, and that was eventually achieved by vote through coercion.(you will lose you place as bishop if you don’t agree)

An interesting rendering of history. However, the concept of the Church being protected by the HS comes from the mouth of Christ, and not from any human being. So does the ability to teach Truth, since this is not something man can do without divine intervention.

The idea that the pope is infailable is a reaction to the world of science, that achieves infailablility due to its very method. Scientists, CAN and WILL lie but the scientific method does not.

I suppose I could go along with this to an extent, but such a statement only applies to things that can be proven by science. That leaves out a lot of human, and all of divine experience.

The pope, had to find a way to counteract that. That Pope, by modern psychiatry, was also considered insane by the time he died. Most people have no knowlege of how this doctrine came about.

I agree about the ignorance, as you have demonstrated yours here.