T
twf
Guest
It was an infallible, doctrinal teaching that circumcision would not be required… as baptism is the circumcision of the new covenant.
- Status
T
twf
Guest
But it is doctrinal that baptism, not circumcision, is an absolute (divine law) requirement for Church membership. I would say that was definitively clarified at the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15- at least by intent.
Last edited:
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
Noone could disagree with that.
The issue was whether both were required.
Up to that time what people thought was doctrine was really only practice (circumcision) - and the practice was removed by that Council.
Simply a directive, Canon Law if you like. It could be reimposed.
Whence pronouncement of infallible dogma?
Whence the defining of Papal infallibility as Vico originally observed?
Last edited:
G
Genesis315
Guest
Unfortunately, likely due to a false irenicism (condemned by Vatican II), the dogma of papal infallibility has been unduly minimized. The unusual ceremonial attached to the two famous definitions of Marian dogmas have also minimized the other instances. The fact is, Popes have intervened to provided definitive judgments binding the whole Church many, many times.
At the First Vatican Council, when some bishops wanted to condition papal infallibility on the Pope following some procedure, the relator (charged with providing official explanations of Council documents to the bishops at the Council) said this could not be done, because there were already so many instances with various procedures or even none at all:
Bishop Gasser:
“Thousands and thousands” might be a bit hyperbolic, but the point remains–it has been many times. Throughout history Popes have often intervened to provide definitive judgments in the areas of faith and morals, sometimes definitively condemning long lists of propositions (e.g. Coelestis Pastor of Bl. Innocent XI, Ex Omnibus Afflictionibus of St. Pius V, Unigenitus of Clement VI, Auctorem Fidei of Pius VI, etc., etc.; each condemned proposition is probably considered an individual judgment by Gasser above accounting for the high number he gives) and sometimes definitively asserting a truth (e.g. like those definitions in Benedictus Deus of Benedict XII, Unam Sanctam of Boniface VIII, the dogmatic letter of St. Agatho, the Tome of St. Leo, etc.).
Some people ask for a definitive list of definitive judgments by the Pope, but this kind of misses the point. In fact, papal decrees and letters can be lost or forgotten over the course of time. Ordinarily, the ordinary Magisterium of the Church suffices to adequately teach the faith–that is the constant teaching of the true faith by Popes and bishops in their words, letters, catechisms; the belief and handing on of the faith by the faithful in all times and places; in the Church’s worship and traditions, etc. Our faith is not just a list of papal definitions. When the clarity of a truth is cast into doubt (not in the sense that people know what the Church teaches but don’t believe it, but rather in the sense that what the Church actually teaches becomes uncertain) and the ordinary means fail to bring this clarity and unity of faith, it is the duty of the Pope to definitively settle the matter and call all to the unity and clarity of faith–that’s why this exercise of the Magisterium is called extraordinary–so these truths once again can be handed on by the ordinary means throughout the world for ever and ever.
At the First Vatican Council, when some bishops wanted to condition papal infallibility on the Pope following some procedure, the relator (charged with providing official explanations of Council documents to the bishops at the Council) said this could not be done, because there were already so many instances with various procedures or even none at all:
Bishop Gasser:
The Gift of Infallibility
Infallibility is a deeply misunderstood idea, within as well as outside the Catholic Church. It remains a subject of great theological debate, especially regarding papal infallibility and the ordinary magisterium of the Church. In The Gift of Infallibility, theologian James T. O'Connor clarifies...
books.google.com
“Thousands and thousands” might be a bit hyperbolic, but the point remains–it has been many times. Throughout history Popes have often intervened to provide definitive judgments in the areas of faith and morals, sometimes definitively condemning long lists of propositions (e.g. Coelestis Pastor of Bl. Innocent XI, Ex Omnibus Afflictionibus of St. Pius V, Unigenitus of Clement VI, Auctorem Fidei of Pius VI, etc., etc.; each condemned proposition is probably considered an individual judgment by Gasser above accounting for the high number he gives) and sometimes definitively asserting a truth (e.g. like those definitions in Benedictus Deus of Benedict XII, Unam Sanctam of Boniface VIII, the dogmatic letter of St. Agatho, the Tome of St. Leo, etc.).
Some people ask for a definitive list of definitive judgments by the Pope, but this kind of misses the point. In fact, papal decrees and letters can be lost or forgotten over the course of time. Ordinarily, the ordinary Magisterium of the Church suffices to adequately teach the faith–that is the constant teaching of the true faith by Popes and bishops in their words, letters, catechisms; the belief and handing on of the faith by the faithful in all times and places; in the Church’s worship and traditions, etc. Our faith is not just a list of papal definitions. When the clarity of a truth is cast into doubt (not in the sense that people know what the Church teaches but don’t believe it, but rather in the sense that what the Church actually teaches becomes uncertain) and the ordinary means fail to bring this clarity and unity of faith, it is the duty of the Pope to definitively settle the matter and call all to the unity and clarity of faith–that’s why this exercise of the Magisterium is called extraordinary–so these truths once again can be handed on by the ordinary means throughout the world for ever and ever.
Z
ziapueblo
Guest
ThereseFrancis,
I could be wrong but I believe that the Orthodox Churches have always seen the Bishop of Rome having primacy over his brother Bishops. I think the issue is does his primacy include a supreme authority over the entire Church.
Found this, SYNODALITY AND PRIMACY DURING THE FIRST MILLENNIUM:
TOWARDS A COMMON UNDERSTANDING
IN SERVICE TO THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH, by the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church.
ZP
I could be wrong but I believe that the Orthodox Churches have always seen the Bishop of Rome having primacy over his brother Bishops. I think the issue is does his primacy include a supreme authority over the entire Church.
Found this, SYNODALITY AND PRIMACY DURING THE FIRST MILLENNIUM:
TOWARDS A COMMON UNDERSTANDING
IN SERVICE TO THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH, by the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church.
ZP
- Status