Protestants: Could you please do us all a favor??

[InNomineDomini]

Somewhere, somehow, Someone created the “sparks” for “everything” out of “nothing.” I call Him God.

Two hundred years ago, there were not ‘sparks’ which we might, if we choose, call ‘god’; but rather, a blazing fire shining like a sun, which was mystery and question which only the boldest and perhaps most ridiculous men of the time could doubt the apparent light of.

Now, indeed, there are only ‘sparks’; there are tiny lights ‘out there’, somewhere, a perhaps someone, who might or might not be less than imagination, towards which many still sail in the hopes of finding beautiful shores of glory and riches.

What does the future of these ‘sparks’ hold? Will they die out entirely? You have gambled on your opinion, like all men do; but I have little doubt that, unless you choose to exist in the same ignorance as the men of centuries ago did, that you feel tension about your gamble, because there must be a drastic upheaval of all current scientific knowledge, if there can be no tension about the theistic implications of it.

 

[josie_L]

yes exactly … this is what popes do when they invoke infallibility (verses merely voicing an opinion on some obscure topic).

What is the gift of infallibility?

The dogma of infallibility was formally proclaimed at the First Vatican Council in 1870. There are several requirements for a dogmatic, papal infallible pronouncement: (1) The pronouncement must be made by the lawful successor to Peter. (2) The subject matter must be in the area of faith and morals. (3) The pope must be speaking ex cathedra, that is from the very seat and office of Peter. In this way he must be specifically intending to proclaim a doctrine, binding the entire Church to its assent. If one or more of these elements is missing, there is no infallible pronouncement. **Most “examples” of papal “errors” emerge when critics ignore the necessity of these three points. **(Madrid, pp. 135-136, Pope Fiction)

Doctrinal Understanding over Time

The doctrine is one that developed as the Church got a clearer understanding of the teaching authority of the bishops and the primacy of the Pope. St. Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage writing about 256 A.D. said, "Would the heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" Augustine reflected this same Tradition when he said at , "Rome has spoken; the cause is concluded." In 433 A.D. Pope Sixtus III declared that assenting to the Bishop of Rome’s decision on matters of faith and morals was as assent to Peter, "who lives in his successors and whose faith does not fail." Leslie Rumble and Charles M. Carty, the famous radio priests of the 1930’s, declared that: "Before the definition of infallibility in 1870, the Popes did not know they were infallible with the same full certainty of faith as that possessed by later Popes. But they were infallible in fact. The gift of papal infallibility was essential to the Church, not the definition of the gift. You wonder why was it defined only in 1870. But definitions are not given unnecessarily. If no discussion arises on a given point, and no one disputes it, there is no need for a definition. But in the seventeenth century the question of the Pope’s doctrinal authority came more and more to the front, until in 1870, the Vatican Council was asked to settle this question once and for all. The time had come for the Church to know herself fully on this point" (Rumble and Carty, Radio Replies 3: 95).

Infallible papal pronouncements are few because they could not be made without merely endorsing earlier infallible pronouncements from other sources, namely ecumenical councils or the unanimous teaching of the Early Church Fathers. An example of this would be Pope Paul VI’s encyclical Humanae Vitae. This encyclical on human life does not meet the strict requirements for an infallible pronouncement, but it nonetheless teaches infallible truths because they can be enunciated in a document that is not itself infallible.

"How can the Catholic Church claim infallibility when it officially condemned Galileo for heresy when he declared that the Earth revolves around the sun? Add to this fact that Galileo was cruelly imprisoned and force to recant under pains of torture. Modern science show that Galileo was right and the ‘infallible pope’ was wrong." (Madrid, p. 178, Pope Fiction)

"Galileo was a brilliant physicist and astronomer who’s heliocentric theories were contrary to the understanding of the Church of his day, true, but his ideas were also contrary to the Ptolemaic school of thought which was accepted by all contemporary scientists of his day." (Madrid, p. 179, Pope Fiction) Interestingly another scientific peer, Johannes Kepler, a Protestant, was vehemently condemned 10 years earlier by a Protestant University of Tubingen, for advocating the very same theory, and we don’t hear the same blown-out-of proportion stories, that Galileo has led us to. Actually for many years, Galileo was held in high regard by many Roman officials, and his work received high honors from three successive popes. So why was he condemned?

"First of all, is that Galileo’s heliocentric theory, although completely opposed by theologians, wasn’t the real source of his difficulties with the Church. Actually it was a presumption to teach that God was merely accidental, and not substantial. Galileo confused truths with scientific discoveries by saying that in the Bible ‘are found propositions which, when taken literally, are false; that Holy Writ out of regard for the incapacity of the people, expresses itself inexactly…’. Thus it was Galileo’s attack on theology that brought about the heated response from the Church." (Madrid, pp. 181-82, Pope Fiction)

Even with all of this the Church neither violated nor compromised the doctrine of infallibility. Remember that in order for a pope to exercise the charism of infallibility, he must offically be defining a doctrine relating to faith or morals—the pope is not infallible when it comes to science or any other field of thought, furthermore, the other two conditions to pronounce an infallible doctrine were not present.

As Frs. Rumble and Carty in Radio Replies explain: "All his [Galileo] arguments [of the day] gave probability only. In the present state of general education we all know that there is no doubt on the subject, and that the movement of the Earth is in no way opposed to Sacred Scripture, rightly understood. But people did not know that then, and they were not ready for the new knowledge. It’s general publication could result only in widespread disturbance due to a lack of preparatory knowledge . . . **the conservatism of the Church was prudence itself in the face of these novelties not yet proved."**

catholicfaithandreason.org/papal_infallibility.htm

 

[josie_L]

to be continued. . . . .

“The Galileo story when wrongly understood seems to stain the credibility of the Church, but when understood correctly, it proves nothing, except that the Catholic Church is very serious in her efforts to safeguard the flock from error or scandal. Throughout the Galileo ordeal, the Pope Urban VIII, was not acting in his capacity of teacher, but of protective guardian. So as disturbing as this case was it doesn’t conflict with the Catholic teaching of infallibility.” (Madrid, pp. 188-89, Pope Fiction).

catholicfaithandreason.org/papal_infallibility.htm

 

[Memaw]

Two hundred years ago, there were not ‘sparks’ which we might, if we choose, call ‘god’; but rather, a blazing fire shining like a sun, which was mystery and question which only the boldest and perhaps most ridiculous men of the time could doubt the apparent light of.

Now, indeed, there are only ‘sparks’; there are tiny lights ‘out there’, somewhere, a perhaps someone, who might or might not be less than imagination, towards which many still sail in the hopes of finding beautiful shores of glory and riches.

What does the future of these ‘sparks’ hold? Will they die out entirely? You have gambled on your opinion, like all men do; but I have little doubt that, unless you choose to exist in the same ignorance as the men of centuries ago did, that you feel tension about your gamble, because there must be a drastic upheaval of all current scientific knowledge, if there can be no tension about the theistic implications of it.

What does the ‘future’ hold for you IND?? What are you gambling on?? God is not a spark, He is the Light of the World. God Bless, Memaw

 

[moondweller]

No, I’m not saying that. I’m saying that not all Magisterial pronouncements are infallibly declared. Yet, the response of the faithful must be to give our assent, using our faith and reason, whether they are infallible or not.

Then there’s no need for Rome to assert infallibility. So now we’re right back to the old argument of never questioning the Magisterium. Yours is only to believe whatever they say and obey.

See Numbers 17, in which Moses led the Israelites in the wrong direction, yet God navigated his way and led the Israelites to the Promised Land.

This chapter is about proving the Divine choice of Aaron in the context of Korah’s rebellion. Anyway, divine providence wouldn’t equate to human infallibility.

See also Hebrews 13:17.

This passage states nothing about infallibility of leadership or one’s blind obedience to them.

The Apostles always led men to faith in Christ, not to His human mother or themselves.

 

[PRmerger]

Then there’s no need for Rome to assert infallibility.

Why is that? There’s certain issues which have been defined infallibly, and we the faithful have that assurance.

On all other issues, then we’re just like you Protestant folks, I guess!

Yours is only to believe whatever they say and obey.

You do the same, do you not, as a Christian? Of course, by “they” I mean the inspired writers. What’s the diff?

 

[PRmerger]

.This chapter is about proving the Divine choice of Aaron in the context of Korah’s rebellion.

You are certainly free to believe that. (And, BTW, I am, too! )

However, you are fallible, are you not, so your interpretation is, by definition, bound to be wrong sometime. So perhaps you’re wrong here!

Anyway, divine providence wouldn’t equate to human infallibility.

Ah, I see your problem, then, moondweller. You think that Catholics believe that the Magisterium is infallible in their humanity. That’s just silly, moon! There is no such thing as human infallibility. They are infallible by…can you guess…divine providence!!

The Apostles always led men to faith in Christ, not to His human mother or themselves.

That’s very Catholic of you to say that, moon!

 

[guanophore]

Hence, whatever your Magisterium says and writes cannot be considered “infallible” either since what the say and write don’t make choices.

I would venture to say that most of what they say and write does not meet the infallibility criteria. However, it is not what they wrote that would be protected from error, so much as the decision that was made. For example, they decided to gather and include 27 books that they called the New Testament. This was written about, certainly, but it was the decision that was infallible.

Based on your definition only the *persons* themselves who make up your "Magisterium" can be deemed *infallible*.

Infallibility is a description that applies to actions. None of the Magesterium are considered infallible as persons. When they act in accordance with the Holy Spirit, they are considered to have acted without error. Just as it records in the book of Acts.

Acts 15:27-28
“For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us…”

What makes an action infallible is that it is in perfect unity and accordance with the HS. It is the HS (the Divine element) that makes it infallible.

But then they experience only bouts of infallibility.

LOL.



Yes actually, I think it is true that most of the time we are stuck in our limited human world view. Of course, there are probably some very saintly people that have more bouts of perfection, that may last longer. But the gift of infallibility is a “negative” gift. It means that God protects the Church from teaching error. It is preventative as much as proactive.

So it begs the question, who is to determine when these bouts of infallibility actually occur? The Magisterium?

This is really where the issue is rooted, isnt it? The record of the council of Jerusalem is kinda thin. It does not actually say how they went about determining how “it seemed right to the HS and to us”. They prayed, they discussed, they discerned, they decided. This is how it has always been done. The Magesterium trusts that God will lead them into all Truth, they do their part, and place their faith in Him that He will do His.

SHW stated that Scripture can't testify of itself.  If that's so, wouldn't that same principle hold true of your Magisterium?  And since they experience only bouts of infallibility, what guarantee do you have that what they say and write at any given time is *inerrant*?

The Magesterium testifies to Scripture, and Scripture to the Magesterium, and both testify the the HS, who testifies of both of them. Jesus promised to lead them into all Truth, and that the gates of Hell will not prevail. I trust Him at His word.

I don’t have a “guarantee” that what they say or write “at any given time” is infallible. The limits and criteria for infallibility are very narrow and specific.

However, we do know that the Scriptures are inerrant because they’re theopneustos: God-breathed. And God IS, infinitely, infallible.

Indeed, we accept this by faith. What is not infallible is our human minds. Our understanding of the Scripture is influenced by our culture, experience and education (or lack of it).

 

[guanophore]

Ah-huh!Believe me, I think it’s funny too.

Tragic, actually. Out of the same mouth come blessing and cursing. We have Peter, making an infallible statement about the nature of Christ, then immediately after, we see Jesus telling him “get thee behind me, Satan”. If that is not an example of a very short “bout” of infallibility, I don’t know what is!

 

[Peter_J]

You are certainly free to believe that. (And, BTW, I am, too! )

However, you are fallible, are you not, so your interpretation is, by definition, bound to be wrong sometime. So perhaps you’re wrong here!

Moondweller is fallible? How shocking!

I’m kidding. Actually, it’s so un-shocking that I’m not even sure why you brought it into the conversation.

 

[PRmerger]

Moondweller is fallible? How shocking!

I’m kidding. Actually, it’s so un-shocking that I’m not even sure why you brought it into the conversation.

:sad_yes:

What’s so puzzling is why someone would find infalliblity so abhorrent. Without infallibility we end up with 40,000 different denominations. Don’t you want to have the assurance that who you’re following cannot teach error (clarification: when they are declaring something as infallible)? Who wouldn’t want that?

However, moon’s post in which he uses “human” and “infalliblity” together sheds great light on why he’s so opposed to the concept. He thinks we believe people are infallible of their own accord. I hope he now understands that it is God using fallible men to infallibly teach a truth about faith and morals. :yup:

 

[humble_in_doubt]

“Reasonable observer” huh, that leaves you out. It was NOT an infallible statement, get OVER it and move on to find some other thing to drag around forever. God Bless, Memaw

oh oh … the apex of the intelligentsia; Memaw

It was an infallible statement, signed by the Pope under his apostolic authority.

It’s getting boring being right all the time (hey this must be what infallibility feels like)

 

[humble_in_doubt]

He has not disappeared. I see His works every day. The closer I choose to get to Him, the more I notice His divine presence. :extrahappy:

for example?

 

[humble_in_doubt]

(Note: Speaking for myself, even if I became convinced that Pope Alexander thought he was exercising infallibility, I would not leave Christianity, nor would I even leave the RCC; but my understanding of infallibility would be significantly different than it is.) But don’t think that your noble purpose justifies your scornfulness.

That’s not why I left Catholicism (or theism in general). If that were the case protestantism was always an option (my dad’s side of the family is predominantly protestant; so I didn’t have to look far).

As far as scornfulness … I guess I can be arrogant (but I no longer find anything admirable about humility).

 

[Zundrah]

That’s not why I left Catholicism (or theism in general). If that were the case protestantism was always an option (my dad’s side of the family is predominantly protestant; so I didn’t have to look far).

As far as scornfulness … I guess I can be arrogant (but I no longer find anything admirable about humility).

Humble in doubt, I came on this thread a looong time ago and can’t keep up with the post all the time. But I saw your name a what you wrote by you religeon - was catholic but now nothing? Aww, I feel sorry for you, but why did you leave the church and much more your faith? What happened? P.S. The “nothing” is certainly not true!

Do you not believe in God at all now?

 

[Peter_J]

That’s not why I left Catholicism

I guess you can understand, then, my saying that even if you convinced me that Pope Alexander thought he was making an infallible statement (which I rather doubt you can do in any case) that wouldn’t necessarily cause me to leave the RCC?

 

[Memaw]

Humble in doubt, I came on this thread a looong time ago and can’t keep up with the post all the time. But I saw your name a what you wrote by you religeon - was catholic but now nothing? Aww, I feel sorry for you, but why did you leave the church and much more your faith? What happened? P.S. The “nothing” is certainly not true!

Do you not believe in God at all now?

St. Augustine said, “Our hearts are restless, until the rest in THEE Oh LORD.” and ‘humble in doubt’ has certainly proven that!!! Or he wouldn’t be here. I really wish he would use some of that humility he says he has and remove the doubts. The Church will always be here for him to return to. Our Lord is loving and merciful. Jesus I trust in THEE. God Bless, Memaw

 

[PRmerger]

St. Augustine said, “Our hearts are restless, until the rest in THEE Oh LORD.” and ‘humble in doubt’ has certainly proven that!!! Or he wouldn’t be here.

Indeed.

See his response on page 51 to my question: “But you don’t have even a little doubt in the back of your mind that you could be wrong? There’s not a whisper in your spirit, during the quiet moments of your life, that calls to you and tells you there could be something more?”

His initial response speaks volumes about the inner doubts that trouble him, and, indeed, his blustering speeches really betray the suspicions in his heart–“I know in my heart that there’s something more!”

Not to mention that he’s been baptized, so he’s been claimed by Christ! God has claimed him as His own. :clapping:

 

[Zundrah]

Indeed.

See his response on page 51 to my question: “But you don’t have even a little doubt in the back of your mind that you could be wrong? There’s not a whisper in your spirit, during the quiet moments of your life, that calls to you and tells you there could be something more?”

His initial response speaks volumes about the inner doubts that trouble him, and, indeed, his blustering speeches really betray the suspicions in his heart–“I know in my heart that there’s something more!”

Not to mention that he’s been baptized, so he’s been claimed by Christ! God has claimed him as His own. :clapping:

And he can’t run away from that! Amen!

 

[Zundrah]

St. Augustine said, “Our hearts are restless, until the rest in THEE Oh LORD.” and ‘humble in doubt’ has certainly proven that!!! Or he wouldn’t be here. I really wish he would use some of that humility he says he has and remove the doubts. The Church will always be here for him to return to. Our Lord is loving and merciful. Jesus I trust in THEE. God Bless, Memaw

We can help him .