T
Tunesmith
Guest
I was thinking about the Coptic Christians and Easter Orthodox.
- Status
J
Jon_S_1
Guest
They have infallible authority too. In the first seven ecumenical councils. Now, IMO they sort of lay in wait, unable to call new councils and this living in the past.
As such, they practically give the infallible authority to their Holy Synods and the Patriarchs. They also, (despite objection) pay much attention to the Bishop of Rome.
It only seems simpler from the outside.
M
mardukm
Guest
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
B
billcu1
Guest
Already lost but still here
B
billcu1
Guest
A
Abu
Guest
1) The errors exposed in A), B), C):
The Pope is NOT subject to the *sensus fidei *as implied here, but as shown in 2), the faithful are required to assent to the teaching of the Magisterium and only when they assent to that truth do they enjoy the status of the sensus fidelium.
Further, the infallibility of the Church is expressed and revealed by the Pope individually as Supreme Pontiff, and the declarations 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. Naturally the Pope is protected by the Holy Spirit from contradicting any earlier dogma or doctrine.
2) It is useful to recall the errors here in E) & D):
The falsehood of an “active” infallibility which is non-existent because “the faithful” don’t have a prerogative on truth unless and until they assent to and obey the teaching of the Church.
Fr John A Hardon, S.J., explains that **the *universitas fidelium *(the university of the faithful) referred to in LG art 12, constitutes those who are agreed on the truth - what God has revealed, under the guidance of the sacred Magisterium. This is what gives them universality - spiritual unity. “the truth interiorly possessed gives them consensus, and not the other way around, as though their consensus on some doctrine made it true.” **[The *Catholic Catechism, Doubleday, 1975, p 225-227]
Thus those dissenting are outside of the sensus fidelium.
Facing reality, against “an active infallibility of the Faithful”, this is what Newman taught:
On the requirement that the authoritative words of popes and Councils be interpreted through the ‘passive infallibility’ of the ‘whole body of the Catholic people’ (including the ‘investigations and disputes’ of the school of theologians):“
Some power then is needed to determine the general sense of authoritative words – to determine their direction, drift, limits, and comprehension, to hinder gross perversions. This power is virtually the passive infallibility of the whole body of the Catholic people. The active infallibility lies in the Pope and Bishops – the passive in the ‘universitas’ of the faithful.”
*Letter to Isy Froude *from July 28, 1875; quoted from The *Letters and Diaries of John Henry Newman *(Dessain et al., eds.), xxvii, 336-338].
cardinalnewmansociety.net/theology.html
A
AmbroseSJ
Guest
Abu, I’ll make one last attempt to help you:
I will use an analogy (perhaps not a perfect one) of a symphony orchestra.
The conductor leads all of the members of the orchestra in producing a beautiful symphony. The conductor never NEEDS the consent of the players to do whatever he wants, as long as he is following the sheet music that EVERYONE has before them. It is a ludicrous idea in fact. The very reason for the conductor’s existence is to keep all the players unified and in tune with the music before them. The conductor is SO in tune with the orchestra that their identities almost merge together. The players understand the conductor, and follow his lead. The conductor understands the players and leads them according to their capability and the sheet music before them.
The sheet music is Divine Revelation. Divine Revelation as we know includes Sacred Scripture and Tradition. The music performed is the Will of God, the Holy Spirit, for His Church. The conductor is the Pope and the players are the Faithful.
This is not the whole picture of infallibility, just an analogy of how the Pope leads the Church infallibly.
I will use an analogy (perhaps not a perfect one) of a symphony orchestra.
The conductor leads all of the members of the orchestra in producing a beautiful symphony. The conductor never NEEDS the consent of the players to do whatever he wants, as long as he is following the sheet music that EVERYONE has before them. It is a ludicrous idea in fact. The very reason for the conductor’s existence is to keep all the players unified and in tune with the music before them. The conductor is SO in tune with the orchestra that their identities almost merge together. The players understand the conductor, and follow his lead. The conductor understands the players and leads them according to their capability and the sheet music before them.
The sheet music is Divine Revelation. Divine Revelation as we know includes Sacred Scripture and Tradition. The music performed is the Will of God, the Holy Spirit, for His Church. The conductor is the Pope and the players are the Faithful.
This is not the whole picture of infallibility, just an analogy of how the Pope leads the Church infallibly.
A
Abu
Guest
For the still confused Fr Hardon gives the truth:
Church and Dogma
Fr John A Hardon, S.J.
Who Within the Church Is Infallible?
Coming still closer to the center of our reflections, we now ask, “Who within the Catholic Church is infallible?”
Less than twenty years ago most Catholics would have answered, accurately but inadequately, that the Pope is infallible. Did not the First Vatican Council define papal infallibility?
So it did, but since then there has been a Second Vatican Council, and since the council there has been much thinking and writing on the subject, until now the head reels with theological theory and speculation and yet the answer to our question is very simple.
First let us give the answer, not of theologians but of the Church herself. It comes in two parts:
Part One says, “The whole Church as a community of believers in divine revelation is in possession of infallible truth. We may call this the infallibility of possession, or, as we used to say, passive infallibility.”
**Part Two **says, **“Among the community of believers only the hierarchy, under the Pope, is divinely authorized to determine infallible truth. And between the hierarchy and Pope: he is normative for them, not they for him. They are infallible if they agree with him; he can teach infallibly without, in the same way, depending on them.” **
therealpresence.org/archives/Church_Dogma/Church_Dogma_040.htm
Church and Dogma
Fr John A Hardon, S.J.
Who Within the Church Is Infallible?
Coming still closer to the center of our reflections, we now ask, “Who within the Catholic Church is infallible?”
Less than twenty years ago most Catholics would have answered, accurately but inadequately, that the Pope is infallible. Did not the First Vatican Council define papal infallibility?
So it did, but since then there has been a Second Vatican Council, and since the council there has been much thinking and writing on the subject, until now the head reels with theological theory and speculation and yet the answer to our question is very simple.
First let us give the answer, not of theologians but of the Church herself. It comes in two parts:
Part One says, “The whole Church as a community of believers in divine revelation is in possession of infallible truth. We may call this the infallibility of possession, or, as we used to say, passive infallibility.”
**Part Two **says, **“Among the community of believers only the hierarchy, under the Pope, is divinely authorized to determine infallible truth. And between the hierarchy and Pope: he is normative for them, not they for him. They are infallible if they agree with him; he can teach infallibly without, in the same way, depending on them.” **
therealpresence.org/archives/Church_Dogma/Church_Dogma_040.htm
J
Jon_S_1
Guest
That is absolutely true Abu,
I just hope you are not missing the point that the pope is subject to the dogma of the church. This is what Pope Francis meant when he said in regard to homosexuality “I am a son of the church”
So the pope cannot infallibly declare Christ did not rise for example.
He cannot infallibly declare that Presbyterianism is true and Catholics should become Presbyterians.
So extreme examples, but hopefully they can demonstrate this principle.
A
Abu
Guest
Please refer to my post #85:
“Naturally the Pope is protected by the Holy Spirit from contradicting any earlier dogma or doctrine.”
Much confusion and error is caused by faulty reading and lack of concentration – easy to get over!
This summary from Fr Hardon, S.J., is helpful:
INFALLIBILITY. Freedom from error in teaching the universal Church in matters of faith or morals.
The bearer of the infallibility is every lawful Pope as successor of Peter, the Prince of the Apostles. But the Pope alone is infallible, not others to whom he delegates a part of his teaching authority, for example, the Roman congregations.
**The object of his infallibility **is his teaching of faith and morals. This means especially revealed doctrine like the Incarnation. But it also includes any nonrevealed teaching that is in any way connected with revelation.
The condition of the infallibility is that the Pope speaks ex cathedra. For this is required that: 1. he have the intention of declaring something unchangeably true; and 2. he speak as shepherd and teacher of all the faithful with the full weight of his apostolic authority, and not merely as a private theologian or even merely for the people of Rome or some particular segment of the Church of God.
The source of the infallibility is the supernatural assistance of the Holy Spirit, who protects the supreme teacher of the Church from error and therefore from misleading the people of God.
As a result, the ex cathedra pronouncements of the Pope are unchangeable “of themselves,” that is, not because others in the Church either first instructed the Pope or agree to what he says. (Etym. Latin in-, not + fallibilis; from fallere, to deceive: infallibilis, not able to deceive, or err.)
Modern Catholic Dictionary by Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.
therealpresence.org/cgi-bin/getdefinition.pl
M
mardukm
Guest
It is not a positive protection, but a negative one. The protection is not in being able to contradict, but in not being able to pronounce it. There have been Popes who have expressed heterodox ideas. But the Holy Spirit prevented this such ideas from being pronounced as ex cathedra. Sometimes, it was prevented by the correction of his brother bishops…
Since it is not easy for you, apparently this is false advice.
Not really. This is the guy who once wrote that Purgatory is a “second chance.”
Response: BALONEY!!!
That’s an opinion, not Church teaching.
It also protects the entire College.
The protection of the Holy Spirit for the Church can also come from the correction of the Pope by his brother bishops. This is especially true in an Ecumenical Council, wherein ALL the bishops are judges, not just the Pope. There is never a time when the Pope alone is infallible, nor will there ever be a time when the Pope alone is the orthodox bishop on earth. Where there exists even a single other orthodox bishop, the Pope is bound by the divine constitution of the Church to make his dogmatic pronouncements in agreement and in communion with them.
Blessings,
Marduk
M
MilesVitae
Guest
I’m not sure I’m reading you correctly, but you are implying that it would be possible for the vast majority of the college of bishops to fall into error, leaving but one orthodox bishop standing?
B
billcu1
Guest
A
Abu
Guest
That states precisely one of the gross errors in which mardukm is entrapped – quite unable to quote his imaginary “divine constitution of the Church” that “the Pope is bound by the divine constitution of the Church to make his dogmatic pronouncements in agreement and in communion with them.” Such selfism disables rational thought and assent and seems grounded in an earlier personal belief which smacks of Gallicanism.
Real Catholics however recall the reality:
Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus, Chapter 4:
“Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.”
**Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 25:
“And therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of other, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment.”
That expresses finality with no possibility of a contrary supposition, which some try to limit to the approval of others. That’s their problem. The Holy Spirit protects His Pope, and thus His Church, from teaching error in doctrine.
As Bishop Gasser at Vatican I, working from the citation of Bossuet precisely on the question of papal authority and finality on doctrine and dogma explains, as Fr James T. O’Connor cites:
“Bishop Gasser argues that it would be impossible for the successor of Peter to fulfill his task of confirming the other bishops in the faith if a permanent guarantee of inerrancy had not been given to those who would succeed Peter in his Chair. It is a gift that cannot be dependant on the consent of the other bishops since such a consent would ultimately nullify the special duty of the primate to strengthen the others when their own faith was weak.” The Gift of infallibility, Ignatius 2005, p 26]
T
Tunesmith
Guest
Does anyone remember this error? The catechism had to be revised.
old.usccb.org/mr/mediatalk/backgrounder_recognitio.shtml
United States Catholic Catechism for Adults
(Washington, D.C.: USCCB Publ., 2006)
**Revision on pages 130-131
Prior version:**
The Catholic Church also acknowledges her special relationship to the Jewish people. The Second Vatican Council declared that “this people remains most dear to God, for God does not repent of the gifts he makes nor of the calls he issues.” (LG, no. 16) When God called Abraham out of Ur, he promised to make of him a “great nation.” This began the history of God revealing his divine plan of salvation to a chosen people with whom he made enduring covenants. Thus the covenant that God made with the Jewish people through Moses remains eternally valid for them. At the same time, “remembering, then, her common heritage with the Jews, and moved not by any political consideration, but solely by the religious motivation of Christian charity, she [the Church] deplores all hatred, persecutions, and displays of anti-Semitism leveled at any time or from any source against the Jews.” (Second Vatican Council, Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions [Nostra Aetate; NA], no. 4)
New version:
The Catholic Church also acknowledges her special relationship to the Jewish people. The Second Vatican Council declared that “this people remains most dear to God, for God does not repent of the gifts he makes nor of the calls he issues.” (LG, no. 16) When God called Abraham out of Ur, he promised to make of him a “great nation.” To the Jewish people, whom God first chose to hear his Word, “belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ.” (Rom 9: 4-5; cf. CCC, no. 839) At the same time, “remembering, then, her common heritage with the Jews, and moved not by any political consideration, but solely by the religious motivation of Christian charity, she [the Church] deplores all hatred, persecutions, and displays of anti-Semitism leveled at any time or from any source against the Jews.” (Second Vatican Council, Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions [Nostra Aetate; NA], no. 4)
old.usccb.org/mr/mediatalk/backgrounder_recognitio.shtml
United States Catholic Catechism for Adults
(Washington, D.C.: USCCB Publ., 2006)
**Revision on pages 130-131
Prior version:**
The Catholic Church also acknowledges her special relationship to the Jewish people. The Second Vatican Council declared that “this people remains most dear to God, for God does not repent of the gifts he makes nor of the calls he issues.” (LG, no. 16) When God called Abraham out of Ur, he promised to make of him a “great nation.” This began the history of God revealing his divine plan of salvation to a chosen people with whom he made enduring covenants. Thus the covenant that God made with the Jewish people through Moses remains eternally valid for them. At the same time, “remembering, then, her common heritage with the Jews, and moved not by any political consideration, but solely by the religious motivation of Christian charity, she [the Church] deplores all hatred, persecutions, and displays of anti-Semitism leveled at any time or from any source against the Jews.” (Second Vatican Council, Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions [Nostra Aetate; NA], no. 4)
New version:
The Catholic Church also acknowledges her special relationship to the Jewish people. The Second Vatican Council declared that “this people remains most dear to God, for God does not repent of the gifts he makes nor of the calls he issues.” (LG, no. 16) When God called Abraham out of Ur, he promised to make of him a “great nation.” To the Jewish people, whom God first chose to hear his Word, “belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ.” (Rom 9: 4-5; cf. CCC, no. 839) At the same time, “remembering, then, her common heritage with the Jews, and moved not by any political consideration, but solely by the religious motivation of Christian charity, she [the Church] deplores all hatred, persecutions, and displays of anti-Semitism leveled at any time or from any source against the Jews.” (Second Vatican Council, Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions [Nostra Aetate; NA], no. 4)
J
Jon_S_1
Guest
Sounds like it was corrected.
Regardless it seems to have to do with an understanding of another religion not a Christian doctrine.
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear Tunesmith,
The text at issue was:
Thus the covenant that God made with the Jewish people through Moses remains eternally valid for them.
People were reading it as if the main point of the passage was the clause “eternally valid.” In truth, the main point of the passage was actually the clause “for them.” In other words, that clause meant “according to them” - i.e., according to their own perception or belief. But people were easily misinterpreting it against the true sense of the statement.
Hence, the statement was changed.
Blessings,
Marduk
old.usccb.org/mr/mediatalk/backgrounder_recognitio.shtml
United States Catholic Catechism for Adults
(Washington, D.C.: USCCB Publ., 2006)
**Revision on pages 130-131
Prior version:**
The Catholic Church also acknowledges her special relationship to the Jewish people. The Second Vatican Council declared that “this people remains most dear to God, for God does not repent of the gifts he makes nor of the calls he issues.” (LG, no. 16) When God called Abraham out of Ur, he promised to make of him a “great nation.” This began the history of God revealing his divine plan of salvation to a chosen people with whom he made enduring covenants. At the same time, “remembering, then, her common heritage with the Jews, and moved not by any political consideration, but solely by the religious motivation of Christian charity, she [the Church] deplores all hatred, persecutions, and displays of anti-Semitism leveled at any time or from any source against the Jews.” (Second Vatican Council, Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions [Nostra Aetate; NA], no. 4)
New version:
The Catholic Church also acknowledges her special relationship to the Jewish people. The Second Vatican Council declared that “this people remains most dear to God, for God does not repent of the gifts he makes nor of the calls he issues.” (LG, no. 16) When God called Abraham out of Ur, he promised to make of him a “great nation.” To the Jewish people, whom God first chose to hear his Word, “belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ.” (Rom 9: 4-5; cf. CCC, no. 839) At the same time, “remembering, then, her common heritage with the Jews, and moved not by any political consideration, but solely by the religious motivation of Christian charity, she [the Church] deplores all hatred, persecutions, and displays of anti-Semitism leveled at any time or from any source against the Jews.” (Second Vatican Council, Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions [Nostra Aetate; NA], no. 4)
It was not an objective error. It was changed to overcome the possible misreading that the translated text might convey.
The text at issue was:
Thus the covenant that God made with the Jewish people through Moses remains eternally valid for them.
People were reading it as if the main point of the passage was the clause “eternally valid.” In truth, the main point of the passage was actually the clause “for them.” In other words, that clause meant “according to them” - i.e., according to their own perception or belief. But people were easily misinterpreting it against the true sense of the statement.
Hence, the statement was changed.
Blessings,
Marduk
old.usccb.org/mr/mediatalk/backgrounder_recognitio.shtml
United States Catholic Catechism for Adults
(Washington, D.C.: USCCB Publ., 2006)
**Revision on pages 130-131
Prior version:**
The Catholic Church also acknowledges her special relationship to the Jewish people. The Second Vatican Council declared that “this people remains most dear to God, for God does not repent of the gifts he makes nor of the calls he issues.” (LG, no. 16) When God called Abraham out of Ur, he promised to make of him a “great nation.” This began the history of God revealing his divine plan of salvation to a chosen people with whom he made enduring covenants. At the same time, “remembering, then, her common heritage with the Jews, and moved not by any political consideration, but solely by the religious motivation of Christian charity, she [the Church] deplores all hatred, persecutions, and displays of anti-Semitism leveled at any time or from any source against the Jews.” (Second Vatican Council, Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions [Nostra Aetate; NA], no. 4)
New version:
The Catholic Church also acknowledges her special relationship to the Jewish people. The Second Vatican Council declared that “this people remains most dear to God, for God does not repent of the gifts he makes nor of the calls he issues.” (LG, no. 16) When God called Abraham out of Ur, he promised to make of him a “great nation.” To the Jewish people, whom God first chose to hear his Word, “belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ.” (Rom 9: 4-5; cf. CCC, no. 839) At the same time, “remembering, then, her common heritage with the Jews, and moved not by any political consideration, but solely by the religious motivation of Christian charity, she [the Church] deplores all hatred, persecutions, and displays of anti-Semitism leveled at any time or from any source against the Jews.” (Second Vatican Council, Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions [Nostra Aetate; NA], no. 4)
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear Abu,
“Papal” infallibility is not some sort of magical gift, Abu. The Pope must make a serious effort to determine that he is not contradicting the infallible Faith of the sensus fidei nor the infallible teaching of the universal ordinary Magisterium before he is even capable of pronouncing an ex cathedra decree. Without this necessary effort to ensure that he will not be contradicting the Faith of the Church, he will not have the charism of infallibility, because the charism of infallibility works ONLY throughout and with this effort that he must make… You seem to be under the false impression that “papal” infallibility is some sort of magical power - that the Pope can just decide unilaterally to make a dogma, and then God will magically make sure anything he writes will be free from error. That’s just not the way it works. and you need to stop misleading non-Catholics (and Catholics) and giving them false reasons to reject the teaching of the Catholic Church.
Blessings,
Marduk
I have explained this to you (and others) many times, yet, while the majority have thanked me for the explanation and have resolved their own doubts about the papacy, you, on the other hand (and a few others), persist in an erroneous understanding of “not from the consent of the Church.”
Real Catholics don’t myopically focus on particular texts and create an exaggerated caricature of Catholic teaching based on only that one small text, but take the entire context of the Church’s teaching. That is something you have yet to learn to do.
The finality does not rest on some magical ability, Abu, but rests on the fact that the Pope has PRIORLY determined (and MUST priorly determine) that he is actually in agreement with the sensus fidei and the universal ordinary Magisterium before making the decree.
God’s protection extends to the ENTIRE college, not just the Pope.
Your cut and paste myopic focus is evident here. You utterly fail again to address the context. Bishop Gasser explained what is meant by “consent” in the official Relatio. He explicitly stated that the term “consent” is to be understood not as the necessry agreement of the orthodox preaching/teaching of the bishops, but merely their formal and direct consultation. Bishop Gasser even stated explicitly that this was the “crucial point” of the whole matter. The Pope is in SUBMISSION to Sacred Tradition (that’s part of his job description), and CANNOT contradict the sensus fidei nor the infallible teaching of the universal ordinary Magisterium when he makes an ex cathedra decree.
“Papal” infallibility is not some sort of magical gift, Abu. The Pope must make a serious effort to determine that he is not contradicting the infallible Faith of the sensus fidei nor the infallible teaching of the universal ordinary Magisterium before he is even capable of pronouncing an ex cathedra decree. Without this necessary effort to ensure that he will not be contradicting the Faith of the Church, he will not have the charism of infallibility, because the charism of infallibility works ONLY throughout and with this effort that he must make… You seem to be under the false impression that “papal” infallibility is some sort of magical power - that the Pope can just decide unilaterally to make a dogma, and then God will magically make sure anything he writes will be free from error. That’s just not the way it works. and you need to stop misleading non-Catholics (and Catholics) and giving them false reasons to reject the teaching of the Catholic Church.
Blessings,
Marduk
M
mardukm
Guest
T
Tunesmith
Guest
Sounds like it was corrected.
Regardless it seems to have to do with an understanding of another religion not a Christian doctrine.
No. This catechism which was published and circulated before being corrected was saying that the Jews are saved under the old covenant; an idea that is rejected by scripture and tradition.
Here is what Cardinal Ratzinger had to say at the time.
[4] In a Zenit News Story, “Are Believers of other Religions Saved?”, Sept. 5, 2000, Cardinal Ratzinger made the following statement, “[W]e are in agreement that a Jew, and this is true for believers of other religions, does not need to know or acknowledge Christ as the Son of God in order to be saved, if there are insurmountable impediments, of which he is not blameworthy, to preclude it.”
He was teaching the new catechism; a speculation that is contrary to tradition.
847 “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.”
- Status