D
davidv
Guest
You didn’t ask for proof. I took you at your word that you were seeking understanding.
So, what teaching of the Church do you find so inconvenient that you have to discredit it?
- Status
So, what teaching of the Church do you find so inconvenient that you have to discredit it?
C
cfrancis
Guest
You’re telling me that the opening to Ch LVII (which I’m lead to believe you had never read before) is not an order given by Rome to those who caused the sedition?
Look at the example you provided:
Here is the declarative statement in that verse:
“Do not associate with him, in order that he may feel ashamed”
Paul doesn’t say, “I, Paul, say to you…” and he doesn’t say “You must do this: do not obey…”
Now, if someone were to associate with someone who didn’t obey Paul’s letter, would you say they were disobeying Paul?
Likewise, if someone does not associate with someone who disobeyed Paul’s letter, would you say they were obeying Paul?
Here’s the declarative statement from Clement of Rome, Chapter LVII.–Let the authors of sedition submit themselves:
“Ye therefore, who laid the foundation of this sedition, submit yourselves to the presbyters, and receive correction so as to repent, bending the knees of your hearts.”
If those who caused the sedition do not do this, who are they disobeying?
C
cfrancis
Guest
OK, we’ll do this your way: you tell me what you will accept as proof.
D
Daniel_Keeran
Guest
This is the same advice any Christian would give to any other, not the same as what Paul said with sanctions attached.
G
garysibio
Guest
C
cfrancis
Guest
G
garysibio
Guest
I started off this thread saying that I was having doubts about the doctrine. I would have thought it obvious that I was looking for some evidence for it.
Ahhhhhhhhhh!!! Papal infallibility!!!
I’m looking for any evidence from Scripture or Sacred Tradition that this doctrine is true. That’s all I need. I can’t believe it’s that hard.
Gary
C
cfrancis
Guest
Scripture was already provided. What from Sacred Tradition would you like to see?
Also, please provide for me what you believe “infallibility” to be.
D
Daniel_Keeran
Guest
scripture
E
expectthebest
Guest
Ok. My point is that it is a mortal sin to not believe these infallible truths. One cannot choose not to believe them.
C
cfrancis
Guest
The canon of Scripture is a product of Sacred Tradition…
D
Daniel_Keeran
Guest
the word of God is the product of the Holy Spirit who inspired men to write it; Sacred Tradition is the body of opinions of church fathers and councils that never wrote a word of scripture
Now, as we look at Matthew 16, if Peter was intended to be the head of the church and if this is the meaning of the rock, the keys, and binding and loosing, where else is it stated in the NT? where does he exercise papal authority? where are qualifications for a papal successor given? where do other New Testament authors refer to such a CENTRAL FUNDAMENTAL office as the papal office or to Peter as head of the church? There is only one conclusion: Peter was not intended to be head of the church on earth, Nor was there any office of pope established from the beginning of the church.
C
cfrancis
Guest
You could easily settle this matter if you could provide the Scripture that supports your belief in the canon of Scripture. Nothing in your reply refutes the fact that the canon of Scripture is a product of Sacred Tradition.
Further, your conclusion is neither the only one or the correct one. You are free to think it so, but that does not make it so.
As you have not, cannot, produce a single Scripture to support your belief in the canon of Scripture, your own logic demands you conclude there was never to be a collection of Sacred Scripture and that the one we have is neither correct nor contains Scripture.
D
Daniel_Keeran
Guest
But we both agree that sacred scripture is inspired and sacred tradition is not inspired, so let’s just go with sacred scripture that we both agree is inspired.
G
garysibio
Guest
By papal infallibility I mean that, when addressing issues of doctrine or morals, and when addressing the entire Church and when specifically stated that it is his intention that a given statement is to be taken as infallible, the pope is protected from the possibility of error by the Holy Spirit.
No Scripture proving this belief has been produced that I have seen. I have seen scriptural evidence produced for papal primacy but I don’t have a problem with that and they are not the same thing.
I want to see evidence that papal infallibility is true. Let’s stop beating around the bush. Can you show me from Scripture and/or Sacred Tradition that the doctrine is true or not? I don’t understand what the problem is.
Gary
G
garysibio
Guest
The Catholic Church insists that we follow our conscience. If, in good conscience, after studying a matter, we truly cannot accept something the Church teaches, then we are bound by our consciences.
CCC 1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.
Yes, the conscience can be in error. That is what I am trying to determine but no one has been able to produce any proof to me that the doctrine of papal infallibility is true. So go bother someone else with your pompous self-righteousness. I’m adding you to my ignore list.
Gary
G
GJx86
Guest
Oddly, AFAICT no one has appealed to the First Vatican Council yet. If we consider the dogmatic declarations of ecumenical councils to be infallible, then you have your evidence, because an ecumenical council defined this as dogma
The Council devoted an entire chapter of its decrees to the subject. The main thrust of their reasoning is (1) that Peter, and Peter alone, was entrusted with the ministry of confirming the brethren, and (2) it was fitting that this should occur, since without a central touchstone of truth, schism comes easily (for if two men of equal teaching authority disagree, how do you know which one to believe?). There are other arguments in that chapter, though, including some quotes from other relevant councils.
This, of course, depends on the idea that all dogmatic definitions of ecumenical councils are true. But that claim has its own Scriptural support (Mt 18:18, Lk 10:16), and rejecting the infallibility of the councils gets you (in my opinion) perilously close to sola Scriptura.
I wish Vatican I had put in more citations in its decrees, but I hope the text helps a little bit.
C
Church_Militant
Guest
“Physician heal thyself”
G
garysibio
Guest
The problem with this is that it is circular reasoning. I say “Prove to me that V1 was correct about papal infallibility” then you say “V1 is the evidence.” That doesn’t work.Oddly, AFAICT no one has appealed to the First Vatican Council yet. If we consider the dogmatic declarations of ecumenical councils to be infallible, then you have your evidence, because an ecumenical council defined this as dogma
The Council devoted an entire chapter of its decrees to the subject. The main thrust of their reasoning is (1) that Peter, and Peter alone, was entrusted with the ministry of confirming the brethren, and (2) it was fitting that this should occur, since without a central touchstone of truth, schism comes easily (for if two men of equal teaching authority disagree, how do you know which one to believe?). There are other arguments in that chapter, though, including some quotes from other relevant councils.
This, of course, depends on the idea that all dogmatic definitions of ecumenical councils are true. But that claim has its own Scriptural support (Mt 18:18, Lk 10:16), and rejecting the infallibility of the councils gets you (in my opinion) perilously close to sola Scriptura.
I wish Vatican I had put in more citations in its decrees, but I hope the text helps a little bit.
Matt 18:18 'In truth I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.
Luke 10:16 ‘Anyone who listens to you listens to me; anyone who rejects you rejects me, and those who reject me reject the one who sent me.’
The passage from Luke addresses papal authority (primacy). I don’t have a problem with the pope as the head of the Church. I’m not rejecting the pope; I’m looking for the foundation for the belief in his infallibility.
If you look at Matt 18:18 out of context, it looks as if you might be on to something even though the immediate context is church discipline. However I scanned backwards from this point to see who Jesus was talking to. You have to go back to v. 1 where you find that Jesus is addressing His disciples, not just Peter, not even just the apostles. If v. 18 refers to infallibility, then all of Jesus’ disciples are infallible and that is not what the Church teaches.
Sola Scriptura is not an issue because I don’t care if the evidence comes from the Bible or oral Sacred Tradition. The Church teaches that public (binding) revelation ended with the death of St. John the Apostle. Nothing new can be added after that, not even by an ecumenical council.
Gary
E
expectthebest
Guest
What are you talking about! I’ve not been pompous at all and I have not been self righteous. One may not disagree with any infallible teaching of the Church, even if ones conscience tells him differently. There are teachings which do not fall under infallibility which we can, with a well informed conscience, disagree with. But that does not include the infallible teachings on Faith or Morals. If I am wrong on this, someone please tell me. But I in no way was trying to be pompous or self-righteous.
- Status