A
ASimpleSinner
Guest
What would satisfy as a non-biased, non-polemical source about Blessed Pius IX?
- Status
M
Mickey
Guest
Yeah, you like to spout this particular stream. I do plead ignorance to some things. Contrary to what you believe, I am not all-knowing.
I love Catholic answers from charitable posters. But your vitriol is unnerving.
I love a good debate. It is your continued personal attacks that are illogical.
That’s fine. And I will not lambaste you for that.
I suggest charity in all things–otherwise we do not respond to eachother’s posts.
That is fine. I expect nothing less. But try not to make it personal.
I am not here to debate with myself!
M
Mickey
Guest
That is okay. But I need something with some substance. Maybe a historical writer? I do not know. Any sources would be appreciated.
M
Mickey
Guest
There was no reduction. Emoticons are fun!
I asked for proof of “the biggest set of keys” theory.
A
ASimpleSinner
Guest
Spout what particular stream? Pointing out that you are still attempting to understand Papal Infallabilty in one thread and yet critiquing it in another? That is not a personal attack.Yeah, you like to spout this particular stream. I do plead ignorance to some things. Contrary to what you believe, I am not all-knowing.
I love Catholic answers from charitable posters. **But your vitriol is unnerving.
That’s fine. And I will not lambaste you for that.
I suggest charity in all things–otherwise we do not respond to eachother’s posts.
That is fine. I expect nothing less. But try not to make it personal.
I am not here to debate with myself!
Please point out the “personal attacks” or the “vitriol”…
If you can cite examples of such, I will surely work on that.
M
Mickey
Guest
Yes. You question my motives. You do not know me and you are not a heart reader–so knock it off please.
And if you continue the personal attacks I will be forced to report you to the moderators. There are many aspects and intricacies related to papal infallibility. I would go so far to say that the majority of Catholic to not understand it. So do not play your little games with me. If you have constructive posts–fine. If not, let it be.
A
ASimpleSinner
Guest
Total nonsense, Mickey!
Pointing out this inconsistency is NOT questioning motives, and I don’t claim to be a “head reader”.
That is not a personal attack.
It goes to the heart of the question - can one validly or comprehensively question or assert something to be definately in error when they admit to not understanding it.
A personal attack would be to cast aspersions on you as a person - which I have not done. I admit and agree that I DON’T know you so I have never made it my business to offer insults as to your character or about you personally. This is about the strength of arguments.
If those can’t be examined, there can be no debate.
U
Ungcsertez
Guest
Mickey, you aren’t the only one to notice!
U-C
E
ematouk
Guest
Getting back to the topic of papal infallibility…
what do Roman Catholics think of this article I found:
orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/papaldogma.aspx
It seems to claim the same “lack of freedom” at Vatican 1. I just purchased the book by which this chapter was extracted from and it explains that the top theologians of the Roman Catholic faith were in fact anti-infallibilists. These theologians complained and complained after the council. Some of them died outside the RCC, and a few of them ‘submitted their intellect’ to the Roman Pontiff.
Its nicely written I felt, and it didnt seem to be polemic in style. It seems very reliably written. I have looked up some of the sources that I could look up such as Keenan’s controversial catechism - its all true what they have written.
What do RC’s think of this article?
Mardukm, what made you embrace Papal Infallibility as opposed to the conciliar tradition?
God bless.
what do Roman Catholics think of this article I found:
orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/papaldogma.aspx
It seems to claim the same “lack of freedom” at Vatican 1. I just purchased the book by which this chapter was extracted from and it explains that the top theologians of the Roman Catholic faith were in fact anti-infallibilists. These theologians complained and complained after the council. Some of them died outside the RCC, and a few of them ‘submitted their intellect’ to the Roman Pontiff.
Its nicely written I felt, and it didnt seem to be polemic in style. It seems very reliably written. I have looked up some of the sources that I could look up such as Keenan’s controversial catechism - its all true what they have written.
What do RC’s think of this article?
Mardukm, what made you embrace Papal Infallibility as opposed to the conciliar tradition?
God bless.
G
Genesis315
Guest
Mickey, have you ever read the complaints of those on the “losing” end of the first 7 Ecumenical Councils? They assert things no less scandalous or shocking. There’s always a conspiracy. Even those on the “winning” side of those Councils describe scandalous occurrences a few times.
E
ematouk
Guest
While it is true that people did complain after the councils of the first 7 councils, this is not my argument. I am more referring to the arguments these people used to reject papal infallibility.
Firstly, the litmus test of Saint Vincent of Lerins “antiquity, universality, and consent”, was the model for defining dogma in the first 7 councils. But in regards to papal infallibility, there is no antiquity, no universality and no consent among the early fathers.
Secondly, they quote MANY church fathers in early centuries talking about colleagial infallibility of the church, but yet there is no mention of the infallibility of the pope.
Thirdly, they mention that in many of the ecumenical councils, not only did the pope not give approval, but in some cases the pope was not even told or invited (eg. the 2nd Ecumenical council). No pope attended any ecumenical council apparently. Also some Ecumenical councils were called AGAINST the will of the pope (eg. the 5th Ecumenical council).
Fourthly, they argue that while the Tome of Pope St Leo can be seen as defining dogma. Those who rejected the 2 natures of Christ openly were not called heretics until AFTER the Ecumenical council of Chalcedon. In fact, the council did not use the definition of Pope St Leo but that of another bishop as Pope St Leo’s definition was suspected of being implicitly Nestorian (though later claimed as being orthodox). They say this is evidence the early church did not believe in the infallibility of the pope.
Fifthly, they refer to the condemnation of Pope Vigilius at the 5th Ecumenical council and the condemnation of Pope Honorius at the 6th Ecumenical council. (Some say Pope Vigilius and Pope Honorius were not defining dogma, but the specific wording quite honestly shows that they were)
There are many more evidences that I can not remember off the top of my head. None of these evidences are really addressed in apologetic articles of Catholic faith.
Some Converts from Catholicism to Orthodoxy assert that Catholicism lapsed into the Protestant error of Sola Scriptura in that they disregarded colleagial tradition in light of their “new” view of the papacy.
Some Roman Catholic apologists are willing to admit the doctrine of the papacy developed, but it is quite clear by the writing of Vatican 1, that it is an article of faith that infallibility of the pope was believed since the beginning - something which can hardly be proven by 12 centuries of absolute silence on the issue.
The more I read about Papal infallibility the more I find it untenable. The fact Unam Sanctim is no longer regarded as infallible since it clearly contradicts the teaching of Vatican 2 only varifies my belief that Papal Infallibility is a sham dogma.
I’m sorry if I sound very negative on the issue, but even historical materials written by Catholic historians admit the strong influence of Pope Pius IX in the Vatican council. I do not mean to attack the Catholic faith or be offensive to anyone, but Papal Infallibility seems to become more and more untenable the more I delve into it.
God bless you all for helping me understand the Catholic faith.
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother Ematouk,
There is so much more I want to write, but it will have to wait until next week.
And infallibility a “Protestant invention?” Yes, indeed. If you have only read some of the polemic caricatures of infallibility given by the English divines, you would very well see what the Catechism was actually referring to
Blessings,
Marduk
THANK YOU!!!
The article is definitely written with an anti-catholic stance. You probably did not observe it because perhaps that is all you have ever heard. One needs to read other sources to realize how misleading the article is. For instance, it is true that there were 1084 eligible votes voting persons in the Catholic Church. But what it fails to mention is that many bishops were forbidden by their governements to go. There were actually only 800 voting bodies at the opening of the Council. An anti-papal tract put out during the opening of the Council estimated that 600 bishops were in favor of the definition, and only 200 were either against or undecided. In fact, only 140 bishops signed protests at the opening of the Council (the number includes those who did not attend). Further, many bishops died during the Council because of the extreme heat or old age. Many bishops left because of responsibilities to their diocese during a time of possible war (of the 76 mentioned by the article who left the Council, only 50 left because of deliberate abstention). Count the numbers. Of the 1084 eligible voters, there were never more than 140 who opposed it. That’s about 1/8 of the total body!!! And of these, the VAST majority were NOT anti-infallibilists, but merely inopportunists - i.e., those who felt that a definition during such precarious times was inopportune, that the definition was not necessary, or that the definition may put off Protestant and Orthodox Christians, making reunion that much harder…
There is so much more I want to write, but it will have to wait until next week.
If there was such a lack of freedom, why are there pages upon pages upon pages of text contained in Mansi of the Council speeches of the Minority party?
I know that the EO give a much greater place to lay people in determing the faith of the Church than do the CC or OO. In consequence, it might be hard for an EO to understand the Catholic teaching that our faith comes to us through our bishops, not our theologians.
I think we need to be cautious about the rhetoricla value of that catechism. It was written in the context of a persecuted Church that was on the verge of societal acceptance by the anti-Catholic, Protestant government
And infallibility a “Protestant invention?” Yes, indeed. If you have only read some of the polemic caricatures of infallibility given by the English divines, you would very well see what the Catechism was actually referring to
Please give me 2 or 3 days. I need to go.
Blessings,
Marduk
A
ASimpleSinner
Guest
Similarly I notice that some are especially prone to snyde remarks while in turn making unreasonable appeals to emotion or other logical fallacies when challenged.
Has Mickey been a Byzantine Christian long enough for you to approve?
U
Ungcsertez
Guest
By his posts, I would have never thought that Mickey was anything but a “cradle” Eastern Christian.
U-C
A
ASimpleSinner
Guest
Interesting - one wonders what indicators you look for.
M
Mickey
Guest
Thank you U-C.
M
Mickey
Guest
Yeah, I am familiar with the first 7 councils. It is the remaining ones that I question.
M
Mickey
Guest
Again, you do not know me and you make a snide remarks. Classic.
M
Mickey
Guest
Back handed ad-hominem. Classic.
Have you ever considered anger management classes?
M
Mickey
Guest
In spite of the unequal representation and Pius IX using the power and prestige of his office, there was still a large number - eighty-eight bishops - who voted against Papal Infallibility, which was enshrined in the constitution, Pastor Aeternus. Sixty-two bishops, many of whom were de facto opponents, voted with reservations, with only four hundred and fifty-one giving a clear yes - this is less than half of the one thousand and eighty-four prelates with voting privileges and less than two-thirds of the seven hundred bishops in attendance at the commencement of the Council. Over seventy-six bishops in Rome abstained from voting and fifty-five bishops informed the Pope that while maintaining their opposition to the definition that out of filial piety and reverence, which very recently brought our representatives to the feet of your Holiness, do not allow us in a cause so closely concerning Your Holiness to say non placet (it is not pleasing) openly in the face of the Father. This statement alone speaks volumes for the subservience that these bishops had for the immense authority figure of the Pope - a presence unknown in the councils of the Early Church.
orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/papaldogma.aspx
- Status