At least a couple of things in regard to your statement. In matters that would be considered infallible dogma of the church by the pope, I can’t find any such instance where that authority was used on a whim. In the few instances cited, it all seems to be very well thought out. You can imagine the turmoil that would be born of a pope making such a declaration on a whim.Because unlimited authority in ones hands to decide categorically on a whim for hte entire church without a council worries anyone who might not agree with the pope. We didn’t need a pope to be infallible to arrive at the point we are at, God works it out in the church.
Show me evidence that this has ever happened on a whim.Because unlimited authority in ones hands to decide categorically on a whim for hte entire church without a council worries anyone who might not agree with the pope. We didn’t need a pope to be infallible to arrive at the point we are at, God works it out in the church.
You raise the popular illusion that protest’s the Church’s infallibility which Christ has established, for it is Christ who informs the apostles that He must ascend into heaven inorder that the paraclete (Holy Spirit) will be sent to remind them and reveal to them all what Jesus revealed, and it is the Holy Spirit who will speak through them, these scriptures support infallibility from ex-Cathedra.Because unlimited authority in ones hands to decide categorically on a whim for hte entire church without a council worries anyone who might not agree with the pope. We didn’t need a pope to be infallible to arrive at the point we are at, God works it out in the church.
I just have one question? When the protestants reformers moved away from the Catholic Church rejecting the apostolic teachings and traditions. Were these protestant reformers speaking infallibly with their new revelations and new doctrines of sola scriptura and sola fide?A lot of this catholic “holier than thou” attitude is such a turn off. I pray that one day, when I’m in full communion with the church, I remember how annoying it is and refrain from practicing such.
What do you mean that it has ‘already been revealed by God’. Was the IC already revealed by God? What of those who rejected it prior to the definition? What distinguishes it from pious opinions?The Pope can never declare something new on faith and morals that has not already been revealed by God.
=Gabriel of 12;10971155]
If it was the apostles themselves who eyewitnessed the death and resurrection of Jesus, who were given the divine command to be sent to preach and teach, including writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The blessed apostles handed these down to Popes Linus, AnaCletus and Clement.
Clement “declares” to the Corinthian Church what was given to them by Sacred Tradition the Faith, when the Pope Clement’s letter calls them to the peace and teachings of the apostles.
Ok, where again does St. Irenaeus declare that what Pope Clement writes is infallible?This is what is meant by infallibility, that the Pope when speaking ex-Cathedra from the Chair of Peter, just like St.Irenaeus points out that St.Clement writes to the Corinthian Church what the pope declares is infallible because what he reveals to the Corinthian Church is what is already been revealed by Jesus and the Apostles handed down to them. These teachings when taught ex-Cathedra are infallible without error holding all the Church’s to them, which are the traditions and teachings from the Apostles.
Again, where is the mention of infallibility. Sure, a letter from Rome could be classified at “most powerful”, but that doesn’t in any way imply infallibility.St.Irenaeus; "The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoeing in his ears, and their traditions before his eyes. …In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, **the Church in Rome despatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring **the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles.(Against Heresies, Bk. 3, Chap.3)
But that doesn’t imply infallible.Because the powerful letter came from the Roman Church, it came from St.Peter’s apostolic successor. It is from this Church that all other Church’s are to follow as per Sacred Tradition.
St.Ignatius of Antioch writes to Pope Clement in regards to his letter to the Corinthian Church, but never disagree’s with Pope Clement’s declaration nor questions the infallible content which came from the apostles by faith and the apostolic traditions.
This declaration Pope Clement makes to the Corinthian Church applies to all the Church’s because it declares the teachings of the Apostles and their traditions handed down to the Church.
Gabriel, I’m not seeing “infallible” here. Authoritative for the whole Church? Ok.This same infallibility is what Vatican I describes, when the Popes speak ex-Cathedra on faith and morals, these are the same teachings from the apostles, but declared in a different age maybe in a different language, never the less this infallible statement will never conflict nor contradict the apostolic teachings and traditions.
I can’t speak for other traditions, but the Lutheran reformers believed they were trying to move the Church back to those teachings and traditions. That’s why we deny the charge that we are not apostolic.=Gabriel of 12;10971984]I just have one question? When the protestants reformers moved away from the Catholic Church rejecting the apostolic teachings and traditions. Were these protestant reformers speaking infallibly with their new revelations and new doctrines of sola scriptura and sola fide?
That isn’t how we use the term infallible. As I said before, correct and infallible are not mutually inclusive. And our confessions are clear regarding inerrancy and scripture, that no other writings are equal. Additionally, the traditions that do claim infallibility to one degree or another, using the same Sacred Tradition, do not agree with one another, particularly on this issue.The followers of these men, who believed the reformers to be infallible because they claimed their teachings from them to be true ( infallibly =without error) and still hold to these man made doctrines today, although in many different interpretations that do not agree with one another, yet they remain infallible to protestants.
Reveal to whom, in what way?The Pope can never declare something new on faith and morals that has not already been revealed by God.
God revealed it in the protoevangelium Genesis 3:15…, then through the prophets like Isaiah, who reveals that “she delivers a male child before the labor pains”, meaning original sin has NOT tainted the Virgin Mary, who delivers the child before the labor pains comes upon her.These birth labor pains are attributed to Eve from original sin to all women after her. Mary did not suffer these labor pains, only after the child is delivered, she begins to experience labor pains of her son being delivered into the hands of sinners, starting with King Herod who sought to kill the infant Jesus until his crucifixion.What do you mean that it has ‘already been revealed by God’. Was the IC already revealed by God? What of those who rejected it prior to the definition? What distinguishes it from pious opinions?
Im comparing Peter’s opinion of rejecting Jesus passion and death before it happened. As to those who may have objected to the IC before it was proclaimed.I’m not sure what peter’s denial has to do with it. Are you saying that those who rejected the IC prior to its definition were under the influence of satan?
Private revelation is now proof for dogmas which must be held by all? Aren’t Catholics allowed to reject Fatima?
Vatican II was an Ecumenical Council. It is every bit as infallible as Trent, or any of the other Ecumenical Councils. Those that argue against its infallibility tend to do so because they do not like what Vatican II decreed.To this day we argue whether Vatican II is infallible or not.
That is why it was being discussed before the proclamation of IC. The Church was living in a time when she saw the birth of this beast of communism. The Church was in the trenches with communism from it’s beginning, the world does not see it maturity until later years when communism begins affecting international boundaries. Your view of history comes later, my view of history is in the beginning from it’s birth.jimmy;10972425]The IC was promulgated in 1849, long before the existence of communism.
Good try, St Thomas Aquinas is a bonified canonized Catholic Saint no more is needed to be said.So people like Aquinas who rejected the IC are comparable to Peter rejecting the passion?
Aquinas explicitly denied the IC. You are the one who compared it to Peter’s denial.That is why it was being discussed before the proclamation of IC. The Church was living in a time when she saw the birth of this beast of communism. The Church was in the trenches with communism from it’s beginning, the world does not see it maturity until later years when communism begins affecting international boundaries. Your view of history comes later, my view of history is in the beginning from it’s birth.
Pope Pius IX writes his encyclical in 1849
The dogma is solemly declared in 1854
Good try, St Thomas Aquinas is a bonified canonized Catholic Saint no more is needed to be said.
Even a council will need someone to preside, to bang the gavel, to referee, to call timeout.Because unlimited authority in ones hands to decide categorically on a whim for hte entire church without a council worries anyone who might not agree with the pope. We didn’t need a pope to be infallible to arrive at the point we are at, God works it out in the church.
I think this presents an inflated sense of the concept of infallibility, both within the Church and within the lives of individual Christians. I don’t think it is something that most people think about often. Why throw it out there as a stumbling block when it is not?Protestants,
Mathew 16: 18And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. 20Then he commanded his disciples, that they should tell no one that he was Jesus the Christ.
Matthew 18: 17And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican. 18Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.
John 20: 21He said therefore to them again: Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you. 22When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. 23Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.
Protestants the word that you are so worried about the same word that stops many Protestants from entering the Church is the word “INFALLIBILITY”
Many Protestants say the word Infallibility is not found in the bible, and true the word Infallibility is not spelled out in the bible, BUT! The definition of Infallibility is! Where you might say, read Mathew chapter 16: and 18: and John Chapter 20:
This is also a definition of the word Infallibility and that is the Power to for give sins or retain them. Yes, you and I as Christians, must forgive our brothers and sister who have done us wrong 70 times 7 times BUT the Church Jesus Christ Established don’t, because the Church can forgive or RETAIN them and this is the Power of Infallibility To do So. AMEN
Jesus Christ gave to Peter, Power to bind and loose anything, ANYTHING! on earth and in Heaven, now Protestants, if this is not the definition of Infallibility, Regarding Faith and Morals then tell me, what is?
Protestants, do you really believe that this power to bind and loose anything on earth and in heaven or have the Authority to forgive sins or retain sins, ended with the death of St. Peter? No! It continues with the successors of St. Peter to this very day and it will continue after our death, until our Lord Jesus Christ Comes again.
Protestants, Really, Would Jesus Christ Establish His Church, without giving the Power of Infallibility or the definition of the word Infallibility to St. Peter and His Successors? No!!! The proof of this, is in the above scriptures, read it again, for yourselves, and you as well will see the definition of the word Infallibility. The Actions of Jesus Christ giving this Authority, speaks Louder than Words, don’t you agree.
The Catholic Church has the Keys, and it is another sign of Infallibility! I mean the power to bind or loose anything. Again and again, if this is not the Power of Infallibility, please tell me what is?
Protestants, The questions you should be asking yourselves and truly, truly worried about, is why don’t your church, claim it has this “Infallibility” Amen.
To be a member of the Church with Infallibility is to be in the Church that Jesus Christ founded, because He founded It on Rock not on sand.
Ufam Tobie
Your comments above are roughly similar to my concept of the Papal role in a more conciliar construct. And he could call the coffee breaks. And publish the minutes.Even a council will need someone to preside, to bang the gavel, to referee, to call timeout.
There will also be a need for a review of the outcome of a council.
So if it is not the bishop of Rome…who is the alternative do you propose to do all of the above?