The catechisms were written before the Church raised papal infallibility to the level of dogma. By the way, following your logic we’d have to toss out the Summa Theologica. After all, St. Thomas Aquinas rejected the Immaculate Conception.
And in so stating that the church teaches that there is no papal infallibility, they exceeded their authority and were wrong to do so. As such, these Catechisms were in error, not church teaching itself.
Summa Theologica is a great text, but it is not infallible teaching either. You’re correct, if someone was trying to use Summa Theologica to attack the church’s views on the Immaculate conception I would likewise point out to them that Summa Theologica is, of itself, devoid of magisterial authority and therefore does not represent Objective Truth in and of itself, even though much of it contains objective truth.
The Catholic faith is not a blind faith. Leave that sort of thing to the cults. If the Church is going to claim that the truths it teaches came from the apostles, then they need to be able to show that.
How does that statement have anything to do with whether or not two authors in Ireland wrote uncertified catechisms which taught something the church does not? I agree with the statement you give above, but it is totally irrelevant to your original post.
Let’s see if I can explain this better.
Contrary to the claims of the Modernists, St Thomas is not held universally to have rejected the Immaculate Conception. In fact, the principles of St Thomas provided the basis for the definition of the dogma, when it finally came. It is indescribably frustrating when otherwise-pious Catholics point to St Thomas’s supposed error on this point as a way of reducing his credibility. No doubt they are unaware of his absolutely unique position as a theologian and Doctor of the Universal Church. No doubt they are unaware that Canon Law prescribes that all professors of theology are to hold and teach the “arguments, doctrine, and principles” of St. Thomas. Canon 1366, Section 2 : “The study of philosophy and theology and the teaching of these sciences to their students must be accurately carried out by Professors (in seminaries etc.) according to the arguments, doctrine, and principles of St. Thomas which they are inviolately to hold.” Canon 589 prescribes that religious are to do likewise. No other doctor holds this place in Catholic theology.
Aquinas didn’t believe the soul entered the body at the moment of conception so he could not have believed in the doctrine as it is understood today.
Right. So, at Vatican I, the Church clarified, authoritatively, this teaching. As the Church has always done at ecumenical councils regarding important questions.
I wonder exactly what it is about the doctrine of the IC which causes you to think that this is the case? I’d be interested to know what you think the IC exactly teaches. I don’t need you to quote the text of the Decree. I want to know what you think it means.
Essentially the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception says that Mary was without sin having been redeemed at the moment of her conception. Aquinas taught that Mary was without sin but not from the moment of her conception because the soul did not enter the body until later. Other famous theologians agreed with him but John Duns Scotis did not and his view was adopted by the Church.
They don’t. So what?
In a wide variety of ways, the Fathers attest to the fact that the church of Rome was the central and most authoritative church. They attest to the Church’s reliance on Rome for advice, for mediation of disputes, and for guidance on doctrinal issues. They note, as Ignatius of Antioch does, that Rome “holds the presidency” among the other churches, and that, as Irenaeus explains, “because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree” with Rome. They are also clear on the fact that it is communion with Rome and the bishop of Rome that causes one to be in communion with the Catholic Church. This displays a recognition that, as Cyprian of Carthage puts it, Rome is “the principal church, in which sacerdotal unity has its source.”
With that understanding, I can see why you would believe that St. Thomas denied the Immaculate conception. But what you have stated is not actually the essence of the doctrine. What the doctrine actually teaches is that the spiritual conception of Mary is immaculate. That is exactly what the scholastics taught. The doctrine is only accidentally related to the physical conception. When the spirit is joined to the body is beside the point. Some scholastics believed the spiritual conception (i.e., God’s creation of the spirit and its simultaneous union with the body) occurred up to 40 days after the physical conception. Everyone today believes that the spiritual conception occurs at the same time as the physical conception. But, as stated, that is not the point of the doctrine of the IC. The doctrine of the IC essentially teaches that the spiritual conception of Mary was immaculate, and this is what the Church today, as well as the Scholastics, and early Church taught.
You seem to be concerned with two issues here - (1) Why did the Irish Church deny the doctrine of papal infallibility, and (2) what are patristic sources for it. I gave you a response to your first concern, and I would appreciate a reason why you would disagree aside from “it’s irrelevant” (i.e., why is it irrelevant?). Your second concern, as stated in an earlier post, I will attempt to address by the end of the week.
The political environment is irrelevant. What is at issue is that there may (do we have proof?) have been Irish Catechisms that were in error, but were corrected.
You’ve made a good case for papal primacy but not infallibility. They are not the same thing. I can see in Scripture and in Sacred Tradition where the Bishop of Rome is the earthly head of Jesus’ church but not that he is divinely protected from error when certain conditions are met.OK, BUT…
Infallibility comes from God Himself, not the Magisterium, who only defined the issue.
**Matt. 16:15-19 and Matt. 18:18 ** Which extends the power of Authority to all the Apostles an subsiquent leaders were GRANTED unlimited Power of Governance by Christ, personally!
To “Bind” and To “Loose” were terms of power of ***unlimited Governance ***when they were used by Jesus and would have been clearly understood as such by those to Jesus was both COMMANDING and teaching.
FROM Strong’s Concordnance: “Bind in Hebrew means” …3**256 **yacar yaw-sar’ a primitive root; to chastise, literally (with blows) or figuratively (with words); hence, to instruct:–bind, chasten, chastise, correct, instruct, punish, reform, reprove, sore, teach.
To “Loose” means: **5203 natash naw-tash’ a primitive root; properly, to pound, i.e. smite; by implication (as if beating out, and thus expanding) to disperse; also, to thrust off, down, out or upon (inclusively, **reject, let alone, permit, remit, etc.):–****cast off, drawn, let fall, forsake, join (battle), leave (off), lie still, loose, spread (self) abroad, stretch out, suffer.
And in GREEK: Result of search for “Loose”:
142. airo ah’-ee-ro a primary root; to lift up; by implication, to take up or away; figuratively, to raise (the voice), keep in suspense (the mind), specially, to sail away (i.e. weigh anchor); by Hebraism (compare 5375) to expiate sin:–away with, bear (up), carry, lift up, loose, make to doubt, put away, remove, take (away, upBy Jesus to peter and the Apostles.
NOTICE and READ very carefully Matt. 16:19… I [Jesus] give to you Peter [my futrure popes] the [all of them’] “KEY’S TO HEAVEN!”
Infallibility has existed from the time of this GRANTED authority by Christ to Peter. The fact that was was not defined, in no way presumes it was not understood, accepted and applied by the Fathers.
Or Irenaeus who was a disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of St John. Irenaeus wrote
“we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolic tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.”
God’s continued Blessing friends,
Pat
If this is the case, how can we know that these things are truly part of the deposit of faith?
The things you mentioned deal with papal primacy, not infallibility.
The meaning of the terms are inter-related. I will clarify because in all of your posts you don’t show much of an indication you understand what these terms mean.
Because of what the Catholic Church teaches, we can know they are true.