Papal infallibility simplified and explained

[mardukm]

Can you please clarify your point for highlighting those portions of the text? Are you claiming they assert that the Pope has some sort of absolute authority? If that is what you are claiming, then let’s examine these highlighted statements?

What you are saying here does not agree with the catholic encyclopedia.
ewtn.com/library/answers/contrad.htm
Ecumenical councils
1 An ecumenical or general, as distinguished from a particular or provincial council, is an assembly of bishops which juridically represents the universal Church as hierarchically constituted by Christ; and, since the primacy of Peter and of his successor, the pope, is an essential feature in the hierarchical constitution of the Church, it follows that there can be no such thing as an ecumenical council independent of, or in opposition to, the pope. No body can perform a strictly corporate function validly without the consent and co-operation of its head.

If I say that the government of the United States cannot exist independent of, or in opposition to, its President, does that make the President an absolute ruler?

Hence:the right to summon an ecumenical council belongs properly to the pope alone, though by his express or presumed consent given ante or post factum, the summons may be issued…

In truth, it is the prerogative of every head bishop alone to summon a council. Do you think that Orthodox Churches believe their head bishops have absolute power because of this unique prerogative? It is the prerogative of the President of the U.S. alone to convene an emergency session of Congress. Does that make him an absolute ruler?

Finally, papal approbation is required to give ecumenical value and authority

The consent of a head bishop is required for every act that affects a plenary ecclesiastical jurisdiction. That is a law of the Church from the very beginning. This is nothing new. It is the resistance to this ancient law of the Church that is the novelty.

Aside from that, how would this indicate “absolute papal authority” in any way? The steering wheel of a car is required for a car to be a car. Does this mean that the steering wheel is the ONLY thing required for a car to be a car? The logic that would claim this statement amounts to absolute papal authority is – well – illogical.

2 That an ecumenical council which satisfies the conditions above stated is an organ of infallibility will not be denied by anyone who admits that the Church is endowed with infallible doctrinal authority. How, if not through such an organ, could infallible authority effectively express itself, unless indeed through the pope?

All this is saying is that just as the Ecumenical Council can infallibly represent the infallible Church, the Pope can also infallibly represent the infallible Church (under specific circumstances according to the needs of the Church by the restrictive definition of V1). How does this contradict anything I stated?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Jon_S_1]

Can you please clarify your point for highlighting those portions of the text? Are you claiming they assert that the Pope has some sort of absolute authority? If that is what you are claiming, then let’s examine these highlighted statements?

If I say that the government of the United States cannot exist independent of, or in opposition to, its President, does that make the President an absolute ruler?

In truth, it is the prerogative of every head bishop alone to summon a council. Do you think that Orthodox Churches believe their head bishops have absolute power because of this unique prerogative? It is the prerogative of the President of the U.S. alone to convene an emergency session of Congress. Does that make him an absolute ruler?

The consent of a head bishop is required for every act that affects a plenary ecclesiastical jurisdiction. That is a law of the Church from the very beginning. This is nothing new. It is the resistance to this ancient law of the Church that is the novelty.

Aside from that, how would this indicate “absolute papal authority” in any way? The steering wheel of a car is required for a car to be a car. Does this mean that the steering wheel is the ONLY thing required for a car to be a car? The logic that would claim this statement amounts to absolute papal authority is – well – illogical.

All this is saying is that just as the Ecumenical Council can infallibly represent the infallible Church, the Pope can also infallibly represent the infallible Church (under specific circumstances according to the needs of the Church by the restrictive definition of V1). How does this contradict anything I stated?

Blessings,
Marduk

Excellent Marduk!

I often find the Protestants on this board believe more about infallibility of the Pope than Catholics.

Of course this is not entirely their fault as it is a straw man manufactured by their leaders so it is easier for them to opposes returning to Rome, and this keeping the “supreme Christian Authority” in their Protestant camps.

 

[Tunesmith]

In truth, it is the prerogative of every head bishop alone to summon a council. Do you think that Orthodox Churches believe their head bishops have absolute power because of this unique prerogative? It is the prerogative of the President of the U.S. alone to convene an emergency session of Congress. Does that make him an absolute ruler?

The consent of a head bishop is required for every act that affects a plenary ecclesiastical jurisdiction. That is a law of the Church from the very beginning. This is nothing new. It is the resistance to this ancient law of the Church that is the novelty.

Aside from that, how would this indicate “absolute papal authority” in any way? The steering wheel of a car is required for a car to be a car. Does this mean that the steering wheel is the ONLY thing required for a car to be a car? The logic that would claim this statement amounts to absolute papal authority is – well – illogical.

All this is saying is that just as the Ecumenical Council can infallibly represent the infallible Church, the Pope can also infallibly represent the infallible Church (under specific circumstances according to the needs of the Church by the restrictive definition of V1). How does this contradict anything I stated?

Blessings,
Marduk

Well I suppose there is nothing contradictory. Maybe it’s the way I understand it that is the problem. However the title of this thread is “Papal infallibility simplified and explained” but I don’t see anything simple about it. The more it’s explained, the more confusing it gets. It was Pope Boniface who said that the pope was king of the world.
faculty.cua.edu/pennington/churchhistory220/lectureeight/unamsanctam.htm
UNAM SANCTAM (Promulgated November 18, 1302)
by Pope Boniface VIII
“Therefore, if the terrestrial power err, it will be judged by the spiritual power; but if a minor spiritual power err, it will be judged by a superior spiritual power; but if the highest power of all err, it can be judged only by God, and not by man, according to the testimony of the Apostle: ‘The spiritual man judgeth of all things and he himself is judged by no man’ [1 Cor 2:15]. This authority, however, (though it has been given to man and is exercised by man), is not human but rather divine, granted to Peter by a divine word and reaffirmed to him (Peter) and his successors by the One Whom Peter confessed, the Lord saying to Peter himself, ‘Whatsoever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound also in Heaven’ etc., [Mt 16:19]. Therefore whoever resists this power thus ordained by God, resists the ordinance of God [Rom 13:2], unless he invent like Manicheus two beginnings, which is false and judged by us heretical, since according to the testimony of Moses, it is not in the beginnings but in the beginning that God created heaven and earth [Gen 1:1]. Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

 

[Tunesmith]

Excellent Marduk!

I often find the Protestants on this board believe more about infallibility of the Pope than Catholics.

Of course this is not entirely their fault as it is a straw man manufactured by their leaders so it is easier for them to opposes returning to Rome, and this keeping the “supreme Christian Authority” in their Protestant camps.

I had 12 years of Catholic education.

 

[Abu]

Veritas 1994 opened with the teaching on papal infallibility.

Then this was offered in #22: Rather Vatican I meant to moderate and correct our understanding of papal infallibility to that which pertains to Ex Cathedra

The “understanding” that needed correction was the error of Gallicanism in the nineteenth century which “asserted the more or less complete freedom of the Catholic Church from the ecclesiastical authority of the bishop of Rome.”

On this Fr O’Connor elucidates on Bishop Gasser’s relatio (official explanation) at Vatican I: “The Church, he says, has assented to the claims of the Roman See and the Church cannot err. Therefore the claims of the Roman See to be infallible are part of the normative tradition of the Church. For Gasser, however, the assent is not the reason for the rightness of Rome’s claims, but a witness to their truth.” The Gift of Infallibility, Ignatius, 2008, p 29, footnote #8].

Tunesmith in #59 correctly highlights essentials regarding papal infallibility from that excellent article at ewtn.com/library/answers/contrad.htm

Mardukm #61
All this is saying is that just as the Ecumenical Council can infallibly represent the infallible Church, the Pope can also infallibly represent the infallible Church (under specific circumstances according to the needs of the Church by the restrictive definition of V1)

The misrepresentation, as before, fails to distinguish the supreme authority of the Pope which has been shown explicitly (in post #41) from Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus, Chapter 4, and Vatican II, *Lumen Gentium *25, to be that “definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.”

The decisions of an Ecumenical Council can be infallible ONLY when approved by the Pope who needs no one, or Council, to ratify his infallible doctrinal decisions.

As Bishop Gasser points out: “Therefore general councils were not necessary in order to know the truth, but in order to repress errors.” The Gift of Infallibility, Fr James T O’Connor, Ignatius, 2008, p 41].

 

[Jon_S_1]

I had 12 years of Catholic education.

I’m sorry it left you confused!

Hopefully you have gained some understanding today.

The pope is subject to the dogmas of the church which is Christ truth given man. That is why he is Vicar if Christ (Servant of Christ).

Infallibility merely means the earthly buck stops there.

 

[Tunesmith]

The misrepresentation, as before, fails to distinguish the supreme authority of the Pope which has been shown explicitly (in post #41) from Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus, Chapter 4, and Vatican II, *Lumen Gentium *25, to be that “definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.”

It has already been infallibly declared throughout church history that there is no hope of salvation for Jews, atheists, protestants, Muslims or anyone else not baptized and not under submission to the pope. I’m not saying I agree with that but that’s the way it was. That was changed by Vatican II. Then it was said VII was not an infallible council but a pastoral council. There’s still confusion about that.

The decisions of an Ecumenical Council can be infallible ONLY when approved by the Pope who needs no one, or Council, to ratify his infallible doctrinal decisions.

Vatican II was approved by the pope.The pope is the only one with the gift of infallibility or maybe I’m wrong about that. I don’t know anymore. Are the bishops allowed to disagree with the pope if the pope makes a decision?

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Abu:

The misrepresentation, as before, fails to distinguish the supreme authority of the Pope which has been shown explicitly (in post #41) from Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus, Chapter 4, and Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 25, to be that “definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.”

Abu, “consent of the Church” has NOTHING to do with Mardukm’s quote:

All this is saying is that just as the Ecumenical Council can infallibly represent the infallible Church, the Pope can also infallibly represent the infallible Church (under specific circumstances according to the needs of the Church by the restrictive definition of V1)

You INVARIABLY try to connect the infallibility of the Pope to his not needing the consent of the Church. You are gravely mistaken in several ways. The Pope can NOT speak infallibly APART from the Church. It is IMPOSSIBLE, according to Gasser’s Relatio. Therefore YOU MUST STOP MAKING THE CONNECTION between Papal infallibility AND the CONSENT OF THE CHURCH. There are several subtle ideas connected with each of them, and you are connecting them in the wrong way.

No one is saying that the Consent of the Church IS NECESSARY for the Pope to speak infallibly. But the opposite notion, that the Pope can speak infallibly apart from the Church is gravely mistaken. This was the VERY ERROR that Vatican I was trying to correct!

LET ME REPEAT THAT: NO ONE IS SAYING THAT THE CONSENT OF THE CHURCH IS NECESSARY FOR THE POPE TO SPEAK INFALLIBLY.

PLEASE DO NOT POST YET MORE QUOTES SAYING THE POPE DOES NOT NEED THE CONSENT OF THE CHURCH!!! SHEESH!!

 

[Jon_S_1]

It has already been infallibly declared throughout church history that there is no hope of salvation for Jews, atheists, protestants, Muslims or anyone else not baptized and not under submission to the pope. I’m not saying I agree with that but that’s the way it was. That was changed by Vatican II. Then it was said VII was not an infallible council but a pastoral council. There’s still confusion about that.

Vatican II was approved by the pope.The pope is the only one with the gift of infallibility or maybe I’m wrong about that. I don’t know anymore. Are the bishops allowed to disagree with the pope if the pope makes a decision?

Please quote to me where Vatican II says baptism is not necessary for salvation. There was always a hope of salvation for everyone. That does not mean there is.

It says no such thing though. Why do you insist on believing something false?

 

[Tunesmith]

Please quote to me where Vatican II says baptism is not necessary for salvation. There was always a hope of salvation for everyone. That does not mean there is.

It says no such thing though. Why do you insist on believing something false?

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a1.htm

1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.60 He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.61 Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.62 The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are “reborn of water and the Spirit.” God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.
1260 "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery."63 Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

Compare verse 63 to the COUNCIL OF FLORENCE (1438-1445)
“It firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the catholic church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the catholic church before the end of their lives; that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed his blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and the unity of the catholic church.”

 

[Jon_S_1]

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a1.htm

1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.60 He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.61 Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.62 The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are “reborn of water and the Spirit.” God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.
1260 "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery."63 Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

And so you read this as the church saying baptism is unnecessary?

Did the church stop doing baptisms? My Protestant church did but not the Catholic Church?

The same catechism you reference does it not say;

1257 **The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. **60 He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.61 Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.62 **The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude **; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are “reborn of water and the Spirit.” God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

 

[Tunesmith]

And so you read this as the church saying baptism is unnecessary?

Did the church stop doing baptisms? My Protestant church did but not the Catholic Church?

The same catechism you reference does it not say;

1257 **The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. **60 He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.61 Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.62 **The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude **; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are “reborn of water and the Spirit.” God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

I’m saying there is disagreement among popes about salvation for those not baptized. If every pope was infallible why did it take 1962 years to come up with hope for the unbaptized.

Pope Boniface said submission to the Roman Pontiff was “absolutely necessary” for salvation. Absolutely means there is no other way.

 

[Jon_S_1]

I’m saying there is disagreement among popes about salvation for those not baptized. If every pope was infallible why did it take 1962 years to come up with hope for the unbaptized.

No there’s not.

All popes have affirmed we know of no way to be saved outside the church. Your quotes from the catechism affirms that .

Some popes have speculated that God can work by a way UNKNOWN to us outside the church.

Of course he can he is God.

This does not mean all religions are Equal or baptism is unnecessary.

The catechism says as well regarding mission;

“Outside the Church there is no salvation”

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336
847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337
848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."338

Mission - a requirement of the Church’s catholicity

849 The missionary mandate. “Having been divinely sent to the nations that she might be ‘the universal sacrament of salvation,’ the Church, in obedience to the command of her founder and because it is demanded by her own essential universality, strives to preach the Gospel to all men”:339 "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and Lo, I am with you always, until the close of the age."340

850 The origin and purpose of mission. The Lord’s missionary mandate is ultimately grounded in the eternal love of the Most Holy Trinity: "The Church on earth is by her nature missionary since, according to the plan of the Father, she has as her origin the mission of the Son and the Holy Spirit."341 The ultimate purpose of mission is none other than to make men share in the communion between the Father and the Son in their Spirit of love.342

851 Missionary motivation. It is from God’s love for all men that the Church in every age receives both the obligation and the vigor of her missionary dynamism, "for the love of Christ urges us on."343 Indeed, God “desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth”;344 that is, God wills the salvation of everyone through the knowledge of the truth. Salvation is found in the truth. Those who obey the prompting of the Spirit of truth are already on the way of salvation. But the Church, to whom this truth has been entrusted, must go out to meet their desire, so as to bring them the truth. Because she believes in God’s universal plan of salvation, the Church must be missionary.

 

[Veritas1994]

It has already been infallibly declared throughout church history that there is no hope of salvation for Jews, atheists, protestants, Muslims or anyone else not baptized and not under submission to the pope. I’m not saying I agree with that but that’s the way it was. That was changed by Vatican II. Then it was said VII was not an infallible council but a pastoral council. There’s still confusion about that.

Vatican II was approved by the pope.The pope is the only one with the gift of infallibility or maybe I’m wrong about that. I don’t know anymore. Are the bishops allowed to disagree with the pope if the pope makes a decision?

first of all Vatican II did not say that Baptism is not neccesary for salvation. The Church has always taught that God is not bound by his sacraments.

As far as Baptism being neccesary for salvation this has always been the teaching of the Church. There is however a sacramental way of being baptized which is through water and two extra-sacramental ways (outside of the sacrament) of being baptized (Baptism of blood and baptism of desire: explicitly and implicitly). The Church teaches thay for someone to be saved without water baptism which is the sacramental way, in order for someone to be saved he needs to have at least an implicit desire for baptism.

Check out the thread that I started dealing with baptism and salvation here
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=854528

Also as far as Vatican II being merely a pastoral council this is also my view. Even the opening address to Vatican II by His Holiness Pope John XXIII states that the council is to be pastoral in nature.
fisheaters.com/openingaddress.html

This is what then Cardinal Ratzinger stated to the Bishops in Chile in 1988 regarding the SSPX talking about Vatican II

"Certainly there is a mentality of narrow views that isolate Vatican II and which has provoked this opposition. There are many accounts of it which give the impression that, from Vatican II onward, everything has been changed, and that what preceded it has no value or, at best, has value only in the light of Vatican II.

"The Second Vatican Council has not been treated as a part of the entire living Tradition of the Church, but as an end of Tradition, a new start from zero. The truth is that this particular Council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council; and yet many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of superdogma which takes away the importance of all the rest.

"This idea is made stronger by things that are now happening. That which previously was considered most holy —the form in which the liturgy was handed down —suddenly appears as the most forbidden of all things, the one thing that can safely be prohibited. It is intolerable to criticize decisions which have been taken since the Council; on the other hand, if men make question of ancient rules, or even of the great truths of the Faith —for instance, the corporal virginity of Mary, the bodily resurrection of Jesus, the immortality of the soul, etc. —nobody complains or only does so with the greatest moderation…

“All this leads a great number of people to ask themselves if the Church of today is really the same as that of yesterday, or if they have changed it for something else without telling people. The one way in which Vatican II can be made plausible is to present it as it is; one part of the unbroken, the unique Tradition of the Church and of her faith.”

Vatican II did produce two “dogmatic constitutions,” on the Church (Lumen gentium) and on Divine Revelation (Dei verbum)–but these are not (nor should they be) the documents people typically quote when talking about the claimed errors of Vatican II. Aside from these and the two “declarations,” the remaining documents of Vatican II are simply “decrees” and one “pastoral constitution” (Gaudium et spes, on the Church in the modern world); these do not even arguably purport to contain infallible teaching.

 

[Veritas1994]

No there’s not.

All popes have affirmed we know of no way to be saved outside the church. Your quotes from the catechism affirms that .

Some popes have speculated that God can work by a way UNKNOWN to us outside the church.

Of course he can he is God.

This does not mean all religions are Equal or baptism is unnecessary.

The catechism says as well regarding mission;

“Outside the Church there is no salvation”

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336
847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337
848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."338

Mission - a requirement of the Church’s catholicity

849 The missionary mandate. “Having been divinely sent to the nations that she might be ‘the universal sacrament of salvation,’ the Church, in obedience to the command of her founder and because it is demanded by her own essential universality, strives to preach the Gospel to all men”:339 "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and Lo, I am with you always, until the close of the age."340

850 The origin and purpose of mission. The Lord’s missionary mandate is ultimately grounded in the eternal love of the Most Holy Trinity: "The Church on earth is by her nature missionary since, according to the plan of the Father, she has as her origin the mission of the Son and the Holy Spirit."341 The ultimate purpose of mission is none other than to make men share in the communion between the Father and the Son in their Spirit of love.342

851 Missionary motivation. It is from God’s love for all men that the Church in every age receives both the obligation and the vigor of her missionary dynamism, "for the love of Christ urges us on."343 Indeed, God “desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth”;344 that is, God wills the salvation of everyone through the knowledge of the truth. Salvation is found in the truth. Those who obey the prompting of the Spirit of truth are already on the way of salvation. But the Church, to whom this truth has been entrusted, must go out to meet their desire, so as to bring them the truth. Because she believes in God’s universal plan of salvation, the Church must be missionary.

Great job:thumbsup:

 

[Abu]

AmbroseSJ #51
your conclusion: " Thus *Humanae Vitae *(Encyclical) and Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (Apostolic Epistle) contain infallible doctrinal definitions, to remove all doubt."
Is mere conjecture.

The “conclusion” is that of an (EWTN) expert, as quoted, not just a poster.

As Bishop Gasser affirms re Ordinatio Sacerdotalis: “It is clear here that the Pope meets all the requirements set forty by Vatican I and explained by Gasser for an infallible papal definition.” The Gift of Infallibility, Fr James T O’Connor, Ignatius, 2008, p 116].

Such selfist opinions fit the mere view of picking and choosing.

 

[Tunesmith]

There’s a lot less confusion in some of the other religions who don’t have infallible leadership.

 

[ckutac]

There’s a lot less confusion in some of the other religions who don’t have infallible leadership.

Those other religions change there view on what is right and wrong, by popular vote. Sorry that is not less confusion, that is in my book:
#1.) More confusion
#2.) Unbiblical and wrong

 

[Jon_S_1]

There’s a lot less confusion in some of the other religions who don’t have infallible leadership.

No, not really.

It’s just people assimilate under the guy that fits their beliefs. Then when they disagree they move somewhere that they agree with.

It’s called church shopping.

I was RAISED to do that. It was taught as a good thing to do!

But it just means I am the infallible authority.

Relativism at its best.

 

[mardukm]

There’s a lot less confusion in some of the other religions who don’t have infallible leadership.

There is no confusion about what is infallible teaching. The debate is only whether or not certain things have been pronounced by the Pope with the infallibility of the extraordinary Magisterium (i.e., ex cathedra), on the one hand, or if it was through the infallibility of the universal ordinary magisterium, on the other,

Further there are Catholics (and others such as those in the SSPX, and also detractors of the papacy) who claim that the Pope can UNILATERALLY define on matters of faith and morals. Every time Catholic High Petrine advocates assert, according to the teaching of the Catholic Church, that
(1) The Pope CANNOT declare anything ex cathedra separated from the infallibility of the Church;
(2) The Pope CANNOT declare anything ex cathedra contrary to the sensus fidei;
(1) The Pope CANNOT declare anything ex cathedra contrary to the teaching of the universal ordinary Magisterium…

we’ll have absolutist Petrine advocates throw around the dogma that ex cathedra statements are “not from the consent of the Church” in opposition to those statements (as if it was ). Absolutist Petrine advocates are confused and are the ones sowing the confusion and giving non-Catholics their false reasons for opposing the Catholic teaching on the papacy. All we can do is pray for them.

Blessings,
Marduk