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

  • Thread starter Thread starter distracted
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Peter_J said:
P.S.

No Vatican said, if the Pope is speaking ex cathedra, then he is exercising infallibility.

It didn’t say, the Pope must be speaking ex cathedra in order to exercise infallibility.
Click to expand...
So is nit picking my every word the only argument you have left? :D:D:D

Ahhhh … I love being right.
 
humble_in_doubt said:
Here’s the language that Pope Alexander VII used when issuing a Papal Bull affirming the churches earlier rulings against Galileo:

’We, having taken the advice of our Cardinals, confirm and approve with Apostolic authority by the tenor of these presents, and command and enjoin all persons everywhere to yield to this Index a constant and complete obedience.'

With the advice of his Cardinals, Pope Alexander issued a papal bull confirming and approving the judgments against Galileo “with apostolic authority.”
Click to expand...
Where you see only a problem, I see a sign of hope. In particular, Paolo Foscarini’s book was “prohibited and condemned”, then later on (someone correct me if this is wrong) that condemnation was lifted, right?

Might we not hope, then, that other condemnations might also be lifted in the future? For example, the condemnation which the Second Council of Lyons (1274) made against those “who presume to deny that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son”?
 
humble_in_doubt said:
I don’t dispute that under it’s own revised definition of infallibility the Galileo affair cannot be said to contravene the doctrine of infallibility. However, my contention is that the CC did constructively contravene the doctrine by any reasonably objective standard. Indeed many Catholics were concerned that by dogmatically defining the doctrine in Vatican I it logically undermined the concept of infallibility (since it at least gives the aura of a post hoc attempt to harmonize its claim of infallibility with some of its more controversial actions throughout history).

Indeed prior to Vatican I papal infallibility (and infallibility of “the church”) was thought to be much more broad when compared to the Vatican I framework. Here’s some quotes from ancient writers on the subject:

“We exhort you in every respect, honorable brother, to heed obediently what has been written by the Most Blessed Pope of the City of Rome; for Blessed Peter, who lives and presides in his own see, provides the truth of the faith to those who seek it. For we, by reason of our pursuit of peace and faith, cannot try cases on the faith without the consent of the Bishop of the City of Rome.” Peter Chrysologus, Letter to Eutyches (449).

According to this promise of the Lord, the Apostolic Church of Peter remains pure and spotless from all leading into error, or heretical fraud, above all Heads and Bishops, and Primates of Churches and people, with its own Pontiffs, with most abundant faith, and the authority of Peter. And while other Churches have to blush for the error of some of their members, this reigns alone immovably established, enforcing silence, and stopping the mouths of all heretics; and we, not drunken with the wine of pride, confess together with it the type of truth, and of the holy apostolic tradition. (St. Cyril of Alexandria, as quoted by St. Thomas in the Catena Aurea).

In 1870 the requirement that the pope must be speaking ex cathedra in order to invoke infallibility was promulgated. While ancient theologians did mention the term, there was no dogmatic framework to invoke infallibility prior to Vatican I (and indeed you will find no formal ritual for invoking infallibility prior to 1870). In other words the claims of the CC in this regard cannot be substantiated.

I would say even measuring what might be fairly viewed as “constructive” invocations of infallibility against Vatican I is an inaccurate measure (since it allows the church the convenience of defining doctrine post hoc and subjectively); and what should really matter is whether or not Christendom viewed certain church actions as carrying the “force of infallibility” when those events actually occurred (since the doctrine was not dogmatically defined prior to 1870). In other words, taking the Galileo affair as an example, is it reasonable to think church authorities or the sitting pope (or even the average Catholic who was aware of the controversy) thought for a moment the church lacked infallible authority when they prosecuted Galileo?

As we see from the quotes above there is evidence to support the fact that infallibility was viewed as much more broad than it is today. Certainly the authority of the church to punish what it viewed as heretics rested on its assumed infallible authority. Of course the churches error with regard to Galileo didn’t end at his death. A generation after Galileo’s death (in 1664) the church went farther to extirpate his error:

The Index for that year was prefixed by a Bull. Entitled Speculatores Domus Israel, it was signed by Pope Alexander VII, who declared, 'We, having taken the advice of our Cardinals, confirm and approve with Apostolic authority by the tenor of these presents, and command and enjoin all persons everywhere to yield to this Index a constant and complete obedience.’

“The importance of this document cannot be minimized, for it included and re-affirmed not only previous formal condemnations, but 'all the relevant decrees up to the present time*, that have been issued since the Index of our predecessor Clement’” (link here).

*Against Galileo (See Id.)

If that’s not a smoking gun then I don’t know what is?

Anyway, here’s a wonderful essay on papal infallibility (and related topics) from a protestant perspective:

ccel.org/s/schaff/history/6_6_per.htm
Click to expand...
Thanks for all of that, humble. However, I think you’re getting confused with all the arguments that you’ve proffered.

One argument you’ve made is that the CC was wrong in its condemnation of Galileo. Acknowledged. You’ve added nothing new to that discussion.

Another argument you seem to be making is that the CC has changed its doctrine. What doctrine is this? What examples have you cited?

Another argument is that the CC claims infallibility with regard to Scripture interpretation. Where does she say this?

Another argument is that the CC redefined its defintion of infalliblity. Here you cited an example of Vatican I defining infalliblity, and provided some quotes prior to Vatican I, presumably about infalliblity as well. However, we can’t know for certain as I couldn’t find the word “infallible” used at all in those citations. 🤷
 
PRmerger said:
Thanks for all of that, humble. However, I think you’re getting confused with all the arguments that you’ve proffered.

One argument you’ve made is that the CC was wrong in its condemnation of Galileo. Acknowledged. You’ve added nothing new to that discussion.

Another argument you seem to be making is that the CC has changed its doctrine. What doctrine is this? What examples have you cited?

Another argument is that the CC claims infallibility with regard to Scripture interpretation. Where does she say this?

Another argument is that the CC redefined its defintion of infalliblity. Here you cited an example of Vatican I defining infalliblity, and provided some quotes prior to Vatican I, presumably about infalliblity as well. However, we can’t know for certain as I couldn’t find the word “infallible” used at all in those citations. 🤷
Click to expand...
I love it. I found a papal bull pertaining to Galileo where the pope clearly made an infallible proclamation. Now you’re trying to backtrack … nice try (ahh not really).

Get over it my friend; humble is right again 👍
 
humble_in_doubt said:
I love it. I found a papal bull pertaining to Galileo where the pope clearly made an infallible proclamation. Now you’re trying to backtrack … nice try (ahh not really).

Get over it my friend; humble is right again 👍
Click to expand...
😉 Sure ya are, humble! Galileo was right, too.

But what about all your other claims? Why haven’t you offered any evidence for that?

One argument you’ve made is that the CC was wrong in its condemnation of Galileo. Acknowledged. You’ve added nothing new to that discussion.

Another argument you seem to be making is that the CC has changed its doctrine. What doctrine is this? What examples have you cited?

Another argument is that the CC claims infallibility with regard to Scripture interpretation. Where does she say this?

Another argument is that the CC redefined its defintion of infalliblity. Here you cited an example of Vatican I defining infalliblity, and provided some quotes prior to Vatican I, presumably about infalliblity as well. However, we can’t know for certain as I couldn’t find the word “infallible” used at all in those citations.
 
Peter_J said:
Where you see only a problem, I see a sign of hope. In particular, Paolo Foscarini’s book was “prohibited and condemned”, then later on (someone correct me if this is wrong) that condemnation was lifted, right?

Might we not hope, then, that other condemnations might also be lifted in the future? For example, the condemnation which the Second Council of Lyons (1274) made against those “who presume to deny that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son”?
Click to expand...
huh? I see neither hope nor problem. I just see a bunch of old guys in really ancient costumes playing on the collective imagination of mankind. Same old same old … religion? :eek:
 
PRmerger said:
😉 Sure ya are, humble! Galileo was right, too.

But what about all your other claims? Why haven’t you offered any evidence for that?
Click to expand...
you mean like the words of the Pope himself? Hmmm … nahhh that’s not credible evidence :confused:
 
humble_in_doubt said:
you mean like the words of the Pope himself? Hmmm … nahhh that’s not credible evidence :confused:
Click to expand...
Ok. What words from the pope himself say that the CC is infallible when she interprets Scripture.

Name of the pope. Document. And the statement that says the CC is infallible when she interprets Scripture.
 
PRmerger said:
Ok. What words from the pope himself say that the CC is infallible when she interprets Scripture.

Name of the pope. Document. And the statement that says the CC is infallible when she interprets Scripture.
Click to expand...
dude I proved you wrong. The debate is over … you lost (as we say in the Army; deal with it and drive on … you don’t do yourself any favors by trying to nit pick at points that were ancillary and weren’t relevant to the central question). The central question was did the church abrogate its own doctrine of infallibility. The answer … YES it did; proven by the words of its own pope.

Lesson learned … Never question the humble! :cool:

BTW the issue involved a matter of erroneous scriptural interpretation; but interpreting scripture is not where they abrogated infallibility; even though yes I do argue that the church constructively (look up the distinction between constructive and express if you need to) asserts infallibility with regard to scriptural interpretation (read above … where I provide quotes from your pope, ancient Catholic saints and theologians, etc.).
 
humble_in_doubt said:
Here’s the language that Pope Alexander VII used when issuing a Papal Bull affirming the churches earlier rulings against Galileo:

’We, having taken the advice of our Cardinals, confirm and approve with Apostolic authority by the tenor of these presents, and command and enjoin all persons everywhere to yield to this Index a constant and complete obedience.'

With the advice of his Cardinals, Pope Alexander issued a papal bull confirming and approving the judgments against Galileo “with apostolic authority.”
Click to expand...
Are you trying to deny the infallibility of the Church through this papal bull?
 
josie_L said:
Are you trying to deny the infallibility of the Church through this papal bull?
Click to expand...
yes … it clearly shows a pope making an infallible declaration (appealing to apostolic authority); when we now he was wrong. Case closed, the church is no more infallible than I am (actually I’m far less flawed :D)

It doesn’t matter how the church keeps redefining infallibility; it’s clear this papal bull was viewed as an infallible declaration by the church and pope when it was made. Anyway … if you want to read my arguments see above (it’s been a long thread & respectfully, I’m not gonna keep rehashing it).

I’m getting bored with debunking infallibility (it’s just too easy) 🙂
 
humble_in_doubt said:
yes … it clearly shows a pope making an infallible declaration (appealing to apostolic authority); when we now he was wrong. Case closed, the church is no more infallible than I am (actually I’m far less flawed :D)

It doesn’t matter how the church keeps redefining infallibility; it’s clear this papal bull was viewed as an infallible declaration by the church and pope when it was made. Anyway … if you want to read my arguments see above (it’s been a long thread & respectfully, I’m not gonna keep rehashing it).

I’m getting bored with debunking infallibility (it’s just too easy) 🙂
Click to expand...
But what does an edict (a formal command) about comdemning Galileo have anything to do with infallibility (which deals with faith and morals)?
 
humble_in_doubt said:
Here’s the language that Pope Alexander VII used when issuing a Papal Bull affirming the churches earlier rulings against Galileo:

’We, having taken the advice of our Cardinals, confirm and approve with Apostolic authority by the tenor of these presents, and command and enjoin all persons everywhere to yield to this Index a constant and complete obedience.'

With the advice of his Cardinals, Pope Alexander issued a papal bull confirming and approving the judgments against Galileo “with apostolic authority.”
Click to expand...
Shows to go you don’t know what your talking about, A Papal Bull is not considered Infallible. Don’t you think you’ve drug that Galileo thing around long enough, Its falling apart on you. God Bless, Memaw
 
well i dont know really what to do but i have a question lol it seems that most protestants want to argue with catholics about scripture and say that we are not scriptualry well-versed well news flash we made the bible you edited our bible so certain sscriptures wouldnt disagree with yall i just think its funny sometimes i protestants say they will pray for my soul very sarcastically and i just nod politely and say as i will for you and they get so frustrated idk they dont know what they believe not that i am some expet i am ignorant in most asspects but at least what i know i didnt get from a bunch radical hysterical babboons.
 
humble_in_doubt said:
dude I proved you wrong. The debate is over … you lost (as we say in the Army; deal with it and drive on … you don’t do yourself any favors by trying to nit pick at points that were ancillary and weren’t relevant to the central question). The central question was did the church abrogate its own doctrine of infallibility. The answer … YES it did; proven by the words of its own pope.

Lesson learned … Never question the humble! :cool:

BTW the issue involved a matter of erroneous scriptural interpretation; but interpreting scripture is not where they abrogated infallibility; even though yes I do argue that the church constructively (look up the distinction between constructive and express if you need to) asserts infallibility with regard to scriptural interpretation (read above … where I provide quotes from your pope, ancient Catholic saints and theologians, etc.).
Click to expand...
Your response is quite peculiar, humble. If there were such a papal document that claimed that the CC infallibly interprets Scripture, all you had to do was say: Pope _____, said in _________ “the CC infallibly interprets Scripture.”

“Behold, I have played the fool and have committed a serious error” sayeth he called humbleindoubt. 😛
 
humble_in_doubt said:
yes … it clearly shows a pope making an infallible declaration (appealing to apostolic authority); when we now he was wrong. Case closed, the church is no more infallible than I am (actually I’m far less flawed :D)

It doesn’t matter how the church keeps redefining infallibility; it’s clear this papal bull was viewed as an infallible declaration by the church and pope when it was made. Anyway … if you want to read my arguments see above (it’s been a long thread & respectfully, I’m not gonna keep rehashing it).

I’m getting bored with debunking infallibility (it’s just too easy) 🙂
Click to expand...
It should be observed in conclusion that papal infallibility is a personal and incommunicable charisma, which is not shared by any pontifical tribunal. It was promised directly to Peter, and to each of Peter’s successors in the primacy, but not as a prerogative the exercise of which could be delegated to others. Hence doctrinal decisions or instructions issued by the Roman congregations, even when approved by the pope in the ordinary way, have no claim to be considered infallible. To be infallible they must be issued by the pope himself in his own name according to the conditions already mentioned as requisite for ex cathedra teaching.

As to the Galileo affair,** it is quite enough to point out the fact that the condemnation of the heliocentric theory was the work of a fallible tribunal. The pope cannot delegate the exercise of his infallible authority to the Roman Congregations, and whatever issues formally in the name of any of these, even when approved and confirmed in the ordinary official way by the pope, does not pretend to be ex cathedra and infallible. **

‘We, having taken the advice of our Cardinals, confirm and approve with Apostolic authority by the tenor of these presents, and command and enjoin all persons everywhere to yield to this Index a constant and complete obedience.’
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top