Papal Problems...:(

[VARC]

Teachings that are divinely revealed or that have been definitively pronounced require the assent of faith.

Good, now we’re getting somewhere

Now, what are all the “teachings that are divinely revealed or that have been definitively pronounced [that] require the assent of faith”?

 

[SiempreFiel]

Good, now we’re getting somewhere

Now, what are all the “teachings that are divinely revealed or that have been definitively pronounced [that] require the assent of faith”?

I do not know. I have not investigated. I’m not worried about it.

 

[VARC]

I do not know. I have not investigated. I’m not worried about it.

I rest my case. Nobody knows and that is why infallibility amounts to nothing.

 

[anthony022071]

And what exactly did Nicea speculate about? I hope you are not referring to the Trinity dogma as speculation.

The way it was defined certainly was the result of theological speculation. Where do you think the word “homoousion” came from?

catholic-legate.com/dialogues/cloud.html

< For example, where does the Bible use the word “Trinity”? And, indeed, where does the Bible define the Blessed Trinity as “One God in three co-equal, co-eternal, consubstantial Divine Persons” --the orthodox Christian belief? Nowhere. That dogmatic formula was given to us by the Catholic Church at the Councils of Nicaea (A.D. 325) and Constantinople I (A.D. 381), based upon the oral Traditions left to the bishops by the Apostles. Likewise, where does the Bible mention or define the Hypostatic Union of Christ? By this, I refer to His being both full-God and fully-man, as opposed to “half-God and half-man,” or “3/4ths God and 1/4th man,” or “God disguised as man,” or “once God and then only a man,” etc.? Where does the Bible present the orthodox Christian doctrine that Jesus is one Divine Person (Who existed from all eternity) with two natures --a Divine nature (which He possessed from all eternity) and a human nature (which He acquired at the moment of His Incarnation)? Where does the Bible directly spell out this essential Christian belief? Answer: It doesn’t. Rather, this essential Christian doctrine was dogmatically defined at the Catholic Council of Ephesus (A.D. 431) and the Council of Chalcedon (A.D. 451), which, again, drew upon the Apostolic oral Traditions of the Church. >

And none of your cut and paste quotes describes the catholic concept of indulgences which is that the Roman bishop has the power to assign the merits of others to satisfy sins. They only speak of christian intercession for the dead not papal power to assign merit.

An indulgence is simply the removal of the punishment for sins.

Pope Paul VI: “An indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven, which the faithful Christian who is duly disposed gains under certain defined conditions through the Church’s help when, as a minister of redemption, she dispenses and applies with authority the treasury of the satisfactions won by Christ and the saints” (Indulgentiarum Doctrina 1).

The pope is a priest,and like all priests,and like St. Paul did for the man who had committed incest,he has the authority to remit the punishment for sins.

 

[mardukm]

I rest my case. Nobody knows and that is why infallibility amounts to nothing.

Brother Siemprefiel did not say he did not know because it is unknowable - he said he did not know because he has not investigated it. :banghead:

So what teachings does Rome say are infallibly true as opposed to probably true (such as limbo for centuries before last year)? Do you not know? Do not have a right to know which doctrines the church of God proclaims as true with her highest authority?

Brother Siemprefiel did not say we believe things that are “probably true.” He says we believe things even though they have not been defined (i.e., dogmatically defined). All things that we believe are true. It is simply that some have been defined, and some have not.

That is the teaching of the Catholic Church, and your Church teaches the same thing (that not all things that we believe have been dogmatically defined), so don’t be a hypocrite about it by casting doubt on what we believe just because it has not been dogmatically defined…

All you’re doing is proferring straw man arguments, putting words in brother Siemprefiel’s mouth and then “refuting” those non-existent statements.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[anthony022071]

Good, now we’re getting somewhere

Now, what are all the “teachings that are divinely revealed or that have been definitively pronounced [that] require the assent of faith”?

Read the Cathecism,and the pronouncements on faith and morals by the councils and the popes.

 

[VARC]

The way it was defined certainly was the result of theological speculation. Where do you think the word “homoousion” came from?

Regardless of how the terminolgy of the Trinity was adopted, christians always believed it because it was taught by the Apostles. We know this from the writings of Ignatius, Justin, Irenaeus, etc. Papal infallibility and indulgences were not taught by the Apostles in any terms but rather the doctrines were “developed” (created) much later.

An indulgence is simply the removal of the punishment for sins.

Not quite. You are omitting the controversial part of the doctrine…

CCC 1471
"An indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven, which the faithful Christian who is duly disposed gains under certain prescribed conditions** through the action of the Church which, as the minister of redemption, dispenses and applies with authority the treasury of the satisfactions of Christ and the saints**.

When you read “actions of the Church” you can substitute “Church” for “pope” because he is the only one in the Church with the authority to create and distribute indulgences. And it is absolutely foreign to the Faith of the Fathers that the pope can “dispense and apply” the merits of others to satisfy for punishment for sin.

 

[mardukm]

Regardless of how the terminolgy of the Trinity was adopted, christians always believed it because it was taught by the Apostles. We know this from the writings of Ignatius, Justin, Irenaeus, etc. Papal infallibility and indulgences were not taught by the Apostles in any terms but rather the doctrines were “developed” (created) much later.

Not quite. You are omitting the controversial part of the doctrine…

CCC 1471
"An indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven, which the faithful Christian who is duly disposed gains under certain prescribed conditions** through the action of the Church which, as the minister of redemption, dispenses and applies with authority the treasury of the satisfactions of Christ and the saints**.

When you read “actions of the Church” you can substitute “Church” for “pope” because he is the only one in the Church with the authority to create and distribute indulgences. And it is absolutely foreign to the Faith of the Fathers that the pope can “dispense and apply” the merits of others to satisfy for punishment for sin.

I think we can make a good case for invincible ignorance regarding brother Varc.

Brother Varc, the issue of indulgences has been explained to the satisfaction of all participating in this thread:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=216338

Please take some time to read through the entire thread.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[steve_b]

I vote for the latter.

good one, but as you know, the Church is not a democracy.

VARC:

I’ve seen entire threads where catholics bicker back and forth about which teachings are infallible because the universal and ordinary teaching of Rome changes from time to time and catholics argue whether or not this or that document is ex cathedra.

I’ve seen the bickering too. None of that however changes anything. As you knw, It’s not up to the laity to decide those things anyway.

• With regards to the comment about change, you won’t find a doctrine being defined then abandoned later. Rather, doctrine develops in terms of greater understanding…

VARC:

So without any way of telling which teachings are infallible and which aren’t, the whole infallibility doctrine amounts to nothing.

So is there any catholic that wants to take a shot at making the ever elusive “infallible teachings list” ?

IMO most if not all the controversy here, by ALL who would attack the teaching, is a lack of understanding about what infallibility really is.

Infallibility just means that certain teachings of the Catholic Church are guaranteed to be without error.

I know what you’re thinking. You’re saying to yourself HOLY COW! :doh2: Ya mean that’s all it is?? That’s it???

I don’t mean It’s no big deal, because it really is a big deal. It’s a great grace Our Lord gives to the Church. As an aside, That’s not to say infallible pronouncements are the full and final word on the topic 1st time out of the shoot, with no need to make further clarifications.

Now with that in mind, Which teachings do you think will be with us forever, and are absolute truths, without error?

 

[VARC]

Brother Siemprefiel did not say he did not know because it is unknowable - he said he did not know because he has not investigated it. :banghead:

Brother Siemprefiel did not say we believe things that are “probably true.” He says we believe things even though they have not been defined (i.e., dogmatically defined). All things that we believe are true. It is simply that some have been defined, and some have not.

That is the teaching of the Catholic Church, and your Church teaches the same thing (that not all things that we believe have been dogmatically defined), so don’t be a hypocrite about it by casting doubt on what we believe just because it has not been dogmatically defined…

All you’re doing is proferring straw man arguments, putting words in brother Siemprefiel’s mouth and then “refuting” those non-existent statements.

Blessings,
Marduk

Then you and siemprefide are arguing way off point. Rome teaches a lot of things but not everything that she teaches is considered infallible. So my question is

What are all the “teachings that are divinely revealed or that have been definitively pronounced [that] require the assent of faith”?

So do you have an answer?

 

[VARC]

Read the Cathecism,and the pronouncements on faith and morals by the councils and the popes.

Are you saying the CCC is infallible? Which pronouncements?

 

[VARC]

I think we can make a good case for invincible ignorance regarding brother Varc.

Brother Varc, the issue of indulgences has been explained to the satisfaction of all participating in this thread:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=216338

Please take some time to read through the entire thread.

Blessings,
Marduk

Wrong. I am participating in this thread and the issue has not been explained to my satisfaction. If you don’t feel like explaining it then don’t but do not presume that you already “satisfied” anybody but yourself and your fellow catholics.

 

[VARC]

I’ve seen the bickering too. None of that however changes anything. As you knw, It’s not up to the laity to decide those things anyway.

Well, that kind of my point. Catholics boast about their pope being infallible but when you ask what teachings the pope has infallibly taught you’ll get contradicting answers. So papal infallibility amounts to nothing IMO because catholics don’t agree as to when exactly the pope is infallible. Your words put it best… no one knows when he speaks infallibly or not because it’s so clouded with vagueries

With regards to the comment about change, you won’t find a doctrine being defined then abandoned later. Rather, doctrine develops in terms of greater understanding…

So? That doesn’t prove that Rome is infallible but rather that she is stubborn IMO

IMO most if not all the controversy here, by ALL who would attack the teaching, is a lack of understanding about what infallibility really is.

The dogma is so broadly defined and ambiguously stated that “lack of understanding” is inevitable to anyone who seriously examines the dogma

Infallibility just means that certain teachings of the Catholic Church are guaranteed to be without error.

Again, which teachings. Not all of them are necessarily true (limbo).

Now with that in mind, Which teachings do you think will be with us forever, and are absolute truths, without error?

I believe that the dogmas handed to the Church by the Apostles concerning the Christ and the Trinity are infallible. But the standard of infallibility is simply “What did the Apostles teach?” not what did this or that bishop “infallibly” declared as true. The teaching of the Apostles can be known through Tradition. The most authoratative witness to Tradition is the Ecumenical Councils (certainly the first 3).

 

[steve_b]

Well, that kind of my point. Catholics boast about their pope being infallible but when you ask what teachings the pope has infallibly taught you’ll get contradicting answers. So papal infallibility amounts to nothing IMO because catholics don’t agree as to when exactly the pope is infallible.

The logical conclusion to your example is that THOSE Catholics are malinformed.

For example, here are 2 examples

1. 
   *]some Catholics as you might know think it’s okay to have an abortion and argue their right to do so. The CCC says anyone who procures or assists someone to have an abortion are excommunicated on the exercise of the act. *latae sententiae *ccc.scborromeo.org.master.com/texis/master/search/?sufs=0&q=abortion&xsubmit=Search&s=SS click on each definition. within each definition, what do you think is infallible truth, and won’t change.
   *]there will be no women priests in the Catholic Church. JPII said it is not possible to ordain a woman priest… And he reiterated this after there was protest from some corners, AND he said there will be no discussion on the matter. Case is closed. Do you think that’s infallible?
   
   
   VARC:
   

   Your words put it best… no one knows when he speaks infallibly or not because it’s so clouded with vagueries

   Those aren’t my words. I’m paraphrasing your words and Mickey’s.
   
   
   VARC:
   

   So? That doesn’t prove that Rome is infallible but rather that she is stubborn IMO

   are you speaking infallibly? Or could you be in error
   
   
   VARC:
   

   The dogma is so broadly defined and ambiguously stated that “lack of understanding” is inevitable to anyone who seriously examines the dogma

   Give an example
   
   
   VARC:
   

   Again, which teachings. Not all of them are necessarily true (limbo).

   Limbo wasn’t a doctrine. It was theological speculation. It came from the reading of scripture where it says unless a soul is born again of water and spirit (baptism) they cannot enter heaven.
   
   So what happens to all those babies or all those who lived a decent life but weren’t baptised? Do they automatically go to hell? If you take a literal reading of scripture, they can’t enter heaven
   
   Limbo was not a doctrine. But polemicists love to make it so and a be all to end all issue.
   
   
   VARC:
   

   I believe that the dogmas handed to the Church by the Apostles concerning the Christ and the Trinity are infallible.

   I agree,
   
   But re: the Trinity, the concepts can be found in scripture but as you know the specifics and the name, came from a council of bishops.
   
   Re: apostolic teachings, how do you know the Church got it right in selecting the correct books to put in the canon? You realize there were 100’s of books they could have selected from. Why only 73 made it and the rest rejected? Why do you accept the fact they got it right? What if they made mistakes?
   
   
   VARC:
   

   But the standard of infallibility is simply “What did the Apostles teach?”

   Don’t forget what Jesus taught. He’s the reason for everything. Did He say only the apostles would be infallible?
   
   
   VARC:
   

   not what did this or that bishop “infallibly” declared as true. The teaching of the Apostles can be known through Tradition.

   (T)radition is BOTH scripture AND what the Church teaches. That means bishops of the Church decided for us, the writings that would make it into (T)radition.
   
   If they made errors, then your faith has errors.
   
   
   VARC:
   

   The most authoratative witness to Tradition is the Ecumenical Councils (certainly the first 3).

   Out of 21, how do you decide only the first 3?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

justasking4;3350806:

Honorius was not just a “negligent” pope but declared by later councils to be a heretic.

But he was not accused of teaching

a heretical doctrine – that is the difference.

Secondly, were popes always understood to be infallible throughout church history?

See post 96.

St. Epiphanius of Salamis (385 A.D.):

"Holy men are therefore called the temple of God, because the Holy Spirit dwells in them; as that Chief of the Apostles testifies, he that was found to be blessed by the Lord, because the Father had revealed unto him. To him then did the Father reveal His true Son; and the same [Peter] furthermore reveals the Holy Spirit. This was befitting in the First of the Apostles, that firm Rock upon which the Church of God is built, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. The gates of hell are heretics and heresiarchs. For in every way was the faith confirmed in him who received the keys of heaven; who looses on earth and binds in heaven. For in him are found all subtle questions of faith.

We still don’t have an answer which Peter, at Antioch or at Rome, St. Ephraim would be talking about (who he recognized in his lifetime as patriarch of Antioch would tell us perhaps, as it would show his side in the Meletian schism).

St. Theodore the Studite:

"In truth we have seen that a manifest successor of the prince of the Apostles presides over the Roman Church. We truly believe that Christ has not deserted the Church here (Constantinople), for assistance from you has been our one and only aid from of old and from the beginning by the providence of God in the critical times. You are, indeed the untroubled and pure fount of orthodoxy

from the beginning, you the calm harbor of the whole Church, far removed from the waves of heresy, you the God-chosen city of refuge. (Letter of St. Theodor and Four Abbots to Pope Paschal).

Note, Christ had not abandoned New Rome, although Iconoclasm was official policy.

Theodoret:

“Wherefore I beseech your sanctity to persuade the very sacred and holy Archbishop Leo to bid me hasten to your council. For that holy see has precedence of all churches in the world, for many reasons; and above all for this, that it is free from all taint of heresy, and that no bishop of false opinions has ever sat upon its throne, but it has kept the grace of the apostles undefiled.”
(Ep. 116, to Renatus the presbyter. A.D. 449.)

Is this the same Theodoret condemned by the Fifth Ecumenical Council?

St. Maximus the Confessor (ca. AD 580-662):

"The extremities of the earth, and everyone in every part of it who purely and rightly confess the Lord, look directly towards the Most Holy Roman Church and her confession and faith, as to a sun of unfailing light awaiting from her the brilliant radiance of the sacred dogmas of our Fathers, according to that which the inspired and holy Councils have stainlessly and piously decreed. For, from the descent of the Incarnate Word amongst us, all the churches in every part of the world have held the greatest Church alone to be their base and foundation, seeing that, according to the promise of Christ Our Savior, the gates of hell will never prevail against her, that she has the keys of the orthodox confession and right faith in Him,

that she opens the true and exclusive religion to such men as approach with piety, and she shuts up and locks every heretical mouth which speaks against the Most High."
(Maximus, Opuscula theologica et polemica [A.D. 650])

Did Honorius shut up and lock every heretical mouth?

 

[guanophore]

There has been speculative theology since the time of St. Justin or before,and speculative theology has been used to define doctrine since the Council of Nicaea.

I think it is even before that. The description we see of Paul about marriage being a type of the Church, and the Church being the Body of Christ (and we as individual members thereof) are some excellent examples of well done speculative theology.

And what exactly did Nicea speculate about? I hope you are not referring to the Trinity dogma as speculation. And none of your cut and paste quotes describes the catholic concept of indulgences which is that the Roman bishop has the power to assign the merits of others to satisfy sins. They only speak of christian intercession for the dead not papal power to assign merit.

Nicea did not speculate, but proclaimed dogma. The Trinity is speculative Theology (of the finest kind!) and so is the hypostatic union. Observing the sabbath on Sunday is speculative theology.

It seems like your understanding of indulgences is somewhat lacking. Nothing can “sastisfy sins” but the blood of Jesus. However, we are urged to bear one another’s burdens, and thus fulfill the law of Christ. This applies to the temporal consequences of sins.

 

[guanophore]

So in the case of the sixth Ecumenical council, an infallible council has condemned an infallible pope.

**The Sixteenth Session of the Third Council of **Constantinople

**”**To Honorius, the heretic, anathema!****”

Clearly you have a misunderstanding of the charism of infallibility if you think that it applies to the personal errors of individuals, rather than the Doctrine of the Church.

 

[Mickey]

Clearly you have a misunderstanding of the charism of infallibility if you think that it applies to the personal errors of individuals, rather than the Doctrine of the Church.

No. I understand it. I was RC for about 38 years and taught by RC nuns and clergy. In some areas, they taught me well.

The council speaks for itself regarding the heretic Honorius.

 

[Mickey]

Wrong. I am participating in this thread and the issue has not been explained to my satisfaction. If you don’t feel like explaining it then don’t but do not presume that you already “satisfied” anybody but yourself and your fellow catholics.

But he is a graduate of RCPU!

 

[anthony022071]

Regardless of how the terminolgy of the Trinity was adopted, christians always believed it because it was taught by the Apostles.

Not all Christians believed it though. There were always heretical versions of Christianity such as Arianism,and the doctrines needed to be developed by theologians and defined by councils approved by the popes,or by letters of the popes themselves,in response to heretical opinions,so that the true doctrines would be clear. The belief in the Trinity needed to be developed for the very reason that it was threatened by Arian opinions.

We know this from the writings of Ignatius, Justin, Irenaeus, etc. Papal infallibility and indulgences were not taught by the Apostles in any terms but rather the doctrines were “developed” (created) much later.

Paul remitted the punishment for sins of others in place of Christ. If Paul could do it even though he was not the head of the whole Church,then certainly the successor to Peter can do it.

Not quite. You are omitting the controversial part of the doctrine…

CCC 1471
"An indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven, which the faithful Christian who is duly disposed gains under certain prescribed conditions** through the action of the Church which, as the minister of redemption, dispenses and applies with authority the treasury of the satisfactions of Christ and the saints**.

When you read “actions of the Church” you can substitute “Church” for “pope” because he is the only one in the Church with the authority to create and distribute indulgences.

The pope isn’t the only one who can give indulgences – any priest can. An indulgence is simply the removing of punishment for sins which have been confessed and forgiven.

And it is absolutely foreign to the Faith of the Fathers that the pope can “dispense and apply” the merits of others to satisfy for punishment for sin.

St. Paul used his own merits to remit the punishment for sins of others,so why should not the pope be able to dispense and apply the merits of the saints to do the same?

“Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church” (Col. 1:24).

Cyprian,Letter 13,

To the Clergy, Concerning Those Who are in Haste to Receive Peace. A.D. 250:

1. “Since, however, you intimate that some are petulant, and eagerly urge their being received to communion, and have desired in this matter that some rule should be given by me to you, I think I have sufficiently written on this subject in the last letter that was sent to you, that they who have received a certificate froth the martyrs, and can be assisted by their help with the Lord in respect of their sins, if they begin to be oppressed with any sickness or risk; when they have made confession, and have received the imposition of hands on them by you in acknowledgment of their penitence, should be remitted to the Lord with the peace promised to them by the martyrs.”