Rcia question about catholic infallibility

[flightkid]

Hello,

Once again we had a great discussion tonight in our RCIA class about the Catholic Church and we covered infalliblity. I am a sponser for my fiance who is Lutheran and we touched on how the successors of Peter are granted the gift of infallibility when speaknig in matters of faith and morals to christians as a whole. They gave 2 for sure examples of popes speaking infallibly 1. Immaculate conception and 2. Assumption of Mary…

Now from what I remember when I went through Catholic school was that the bishops ALONG with and I emphasis have to have POPE in unision with the mageristium have infalliblity in the Councils is that correct? So my question is there are other infalliable documents other than those two I have listed about Mary is that correct? And can you please provide cathcisim evidence and council evidence on if yes or no please. If so how do we Catholics now when an infallible document is there? Is it only through the Councils like Trent or Vatican II? Thank you for your help and God bless!

 

[paul_c]

Hello,

Once again we had a great discussion tonight in our RCIA class about the Catholic Church and we covered infalliblity. I am a sponser for my fiance who is Lutheran and we touched on how the successors of Peter are granted the gift of infallibility when speaknig in matters of faith and morals to christians as a whole. They gave 2 for sure examples of popes speaking infallibly 1. Immaculate conception and 2. Assumption of Mary…

Now from what I remember when I went through Catholic school was that the bishops ALONG with and I emphasis have to have POPE in unision with the mageristium have infalliblity in the Councils is that correct? So my question is there are other infalliable documents other than those two I have listed about Mary is that correct? And can you please provide cathcisim evidence and council evidence on if yes or no please. If so how do we Catholics now when an infallible document is there? Is it only through the Councils like Trent or Vatican II? Thank you for your help and God bless!

Actually, Papal infallibility was documented at the first Vatican Council in 1870. The dogma of Immaculate Conception was decreed in 1854. Only the Assumption of Mary was defined using the papal infallibility doctrine. in 1950, I believe…

 

[flightkid]

but the concept of infalliblity was there and had always been there correct?

 

[paul_c]

but the concept of infalliblity was there and had always been there correct?

yes, it has.

 

[Cluny]

The next thing–and this is going to really muddy the waters–but

Papal infallibility is actually a dead issue, as there is no general agreement as to WHICH papal statements are infallible.

Or, to put it another way, the only two statements recognized as infallible are things we already knew anyway.

 

[imkingdad]

The next thing–and this is going to really muddy the waters–but

Papal infallibility is actually a dead issue, as there is no general agreement as to WHICH papal statements are infallible.

Or, to put it another way, the only two statements recognized as infallible are things we already knew anyway.

Cluny that is just NOT TRUE!

when Pope John Paul 2 spoke out against the ordination of women he spoke with his Authority & that document is considered an INFALLIBLE Teaching.

I am always amazed that those outside the Church are so darn Presumptuous as to tell us what our doctrines & teachings are. If they are so truly and completely informed as to Catholic teaching & yet continue to reject it then truly they are damned. Read the Catechism Cluny and repent while yet you have the time.

 

[Deconi]

Papal Infallibility is responsible for;

Christ is the Son of God and the Second Person of The Living Triune God.
Christ is the One the Jews were awaiting and the Messiah sent.
Christ established One Church for His people
Peter is the Head of that Church and the Vicar of Christ, on earth.
Circumcision is no longer necessary to follow God
Peter’s chair and Authority is transmitted only to his successor.
Every other bishop is as Authoritive, as Peter’s successor, but not to the extent over the ‘whole’ church.
The Bible is to contain ONLY the books canonized and no more, no less.
Abortion is not on.
Women priests are as impossible as Christ turning out to be a female.

etc.
…etc.
…etc.

Immaculate Conception and Assumption are ONLY prominent because ‘Protestants’ keep focusing on them and bring them up in efforts to justify their theologies and ‘splintered’ status.

Study and research what The Church HOLDS and professes as dogmas. These are ALL infallible and cannot change: well, not without that Papal Infallibility.

 

[Deconi]

Cluny that is just NOT TRUE!

when Pope John Paul 2 spoke out against the ordination of women he spoke with his Authority & that document is considered an INFALLIBLE Teaching.

I am always amazed that those outside the Church are so darn Presumptuous as to tell us what our doctrines & teachings are. If they are so truly and completely informed as to Catholic teaching & yet continue to reject it then truly they are damned. Read the Catechism Cluny and repent while yet you have the time.

Call not your brother to account with the accusation to ‘repent.’ (UnCatholic teachings.) Rather, worry more about the ‘beam’ across your own…aww you get the picture.

I understand your ‘temper.’ It is frustrating for a Catholic not to get that Papal permission to berate the ill-informed or simply smack them over the head with the Catechism…but thing is, we do not have it. Catholics have been ‘suffering’ these barbs for centuries and we are to turn several cheeks; or is that a cheek several times? lol

Bear it, and hold fast.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Hello,

Once again we had a great discussion tonight in our RCIA class about the Catholic Church and we covered infalliblity. I am a sponser for my fiance who is Lutheran and we touched on how the successors of Peter are granted the gift of infallibility when speaknig in matters of faith and morals to christians as a whole. They gave 2 for sure examples of popes speaking infallibly 1. Immaculate conception and 2. Assumption of Mary…

Now from what I remember when I went through Catholic school was that the bishops ALONG with and I emphasis have to have POPE in unision with the mageristium have infalliblity in the Councils is that correct? So my question is there are other infalliable documents other than those two I have listed about Mary is that correct? And can you please provide cathcisim evidence and council evidence on if yes or no please. If so how do we Catholics now when an infallible document is there? Is it only through the Councils like Trent or Vatican II? Thank you for your help and God bless!

Also remember that the TEACHING, (Doctrines and Dogmas) are infallible, not documents and councils!

 

[Peter_Dawson]

I think that the best attitude toward Magisterial infallibility (infallibility of the Magisterium, or Church Teaching Authority, however that should manifest) is to accept it as an out-of-focus principle.

It is not well-defined. Literalistic rigorists in the Church can insist that it is, but it is not.

And there are what I believe to be errors in Church teaching, here and there, over the ages, including at the papal level. So, what it is may not be what most think it is.

But I think that we must be patient, because a full understanding of such a principle may be objectively impossible. Why?

Because infallibility is “of the things of God,” it can not be well-explained, because nothing which is an aspect of God touching us directly can be well-explained, because God is ineffable.

Skeptics will answer, “Oh, how convenient!” But it is true despite their skeptical observation, nonetheless.

Also, there is a logic problem, built into our own non-divine flesh, which can not be overcome. It is probably just an expression of God’s ineffability and therefore a restatement of the above from a different frame of reference.

It is sometimes referred to as “Broca’s Theorem,” I think: “No machine (but God) can fully understand itself.”

 

[Lampo]

Indeed, infallibility also belongs to the body of bishops as a whole, when, in doctrinal unity with the pope, they solemnly teach a doctrine as true. We have this from Jesus himself, who promised the apostles and their successors the bishops, the magisterium of the Church: “He who hears you hears me” (Luke 10:16), and “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven” (Matt. 18:18).

Vatican II explained the doctrine of infallibility as follows: “Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they can nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly. This is so, even when they are dispersed around the world, provided that while maintaining the bond of unity among themselves and with Peter’s successor, and while teaching authentically on a matter of faith or morals, they concur in a single viewpoint as the one which must be held conclusively. This authority is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church. Their definitions must then be adhered to with the submission of faith” (Lumen Gentium 25).

The infallibility of the pope is not a doctrine that suddenly appeared in Church teaching; rather, it is a doctrine which was implicit in the early Church. It is only our understanding of infallibility which has developed and been more clearly understood over time. In fact, the doctrine of infallibility is implicit in these Petrine texts: John 21:15–17 ("Feed my sheep . . . "), Luke 22:32 (“I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail”), and Matthew 16:18 ("You are Peter . . . ").

Taken from here.

 

[DOShea]

And there are what I believe to be errors in Church teaching, here and there, over the ages, including at the papal level. So, what it is may not be what most think it is.

An opinion is hardly evidence.

It is not well-defined.

Are you saying when the Holy Father speaks ex-cathedra, on a matter of faith or morals, and speaks to the whole Church, using words like “define” or “declare,” you are unsure if that statement is an infallible teaching? What makes you unsure?

 

[Peter_Dawson]

**Quote:
And there are what I believe to be errors in Church teaching, here and there, over the ages, including at the papal level. So, what it is may not be what most think it is.

An opinion is hardly evidence.

Quote:
It is not well-defined.

Are you saying when the Holy Father speaks ex-cathedra, on a matter of faith or morals, and speaks to the whole Church, using words like “define” or “declare,” you are unsure if that statement is an infallible teaching? What makes you unsure? **

Fr. Hardon, in his Catechism, seemed to indicate that Pope Liberius condemned his own teaching on the Arian heresy. I called Fr. Hardon (who was an acquaintance; he died about a decade ago, by the way) and he said that, yes, Pope Liberius did condemn his own prior teaching.

Also, I believe that the Church’s teaching on Mary’s in partu virginity squarely contradicts Scripture.

 

[ccolley2]

Cluny that is just NOT TRUE!

when Pope John Paul 2 spoke out against the ordination of women he spoke with his Authority & that document is considered an INFALLIBLE Teaching.

I am always amazed that those outside the Church are so darn Presumptuous as to tell us what our doctrines & teachings are. If they are so truly and completely informed as to Catholic teaching & yet continue to reject it then truly they are damned. Read the Catechism Cluny and repent while yet you have the time.

Remember that the original poster IS in RCIA. A place where people are supposed to question and find answers to their faith!

I am a convert, too. It is a difficult process, but converts make the staunchest Catholics. All the Apostles were converts!
CC

 

[ccolley2]

**Quote:
And there are what I believe to be errors in Church teaching, here and there, over the ages, including at the papal level. So, what it is may not be what most think it is. **

An opinion is hardly evidence.

Quote:
It is not well-defined.

Are you saying when the Holy Father speaks ex-cathedra, on a matter of faith or morals, and speaks to the whole Church, using words like “define” or “declare,” you are unsure if that statement is an infallible teaching? What makes you unsure?

Fr. Hardon, in his Catechism, seemed to indicate that Pope Liberius condemned his own teaching on the Arian heresy. I called Fr. Hardon (who was an acquaintance; he died about a decade ago, by the way) and he said that, yes, Pope Liberius did condemn his own prior teaching.

Also, I believe that the Church’s teaching on Mary’s in partu virginity squarely contradicts Scripture.

What is in partu virginity? Do you mean perpetual virginity?
Why do you think it is not scriptural?
CC

 

[Peter_Dawson]

What is in partu virginity? Do you mean perpetual virginity?
Why do you think it is not scriptural?
CC

Functionally, the in partu virginity doctrine, declared by Pope Martin I in 649 A.D., says, “Mary was such a perpetual virgin that at all points in time her genetive tract was unbreached – there was no tearing and opening of Mary’s flesh and giving birth in the usual way common to all other humans.”

Where does Scripture squarely contradict this notion?

Luke 2:22-24.

There, it says that Mary and Joseph were acting “in accord with the dictate of the law of the Lord” when they “purified” Mary and Jesus by the “sacrifice” of “a pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons.”

If you turn to Leviticus 12, you will see that the divine purpose of the sacrifice is to purify them of Mary’s “flow of blood” in giving birth.

A flow of blood would squarely contradict in partu virginity. It entails a breaching of the flesh.

 

[paul_c]

Functionally, the in partu virginity doctrine, declared by Pope Martin I in 649 A.D., says, “Mary was such a perpetual virgin that at all points in time her genetive tract was unbreached – there was no tearing and opening of Mary’s flesh and giving birth in the usual way common to all other humans.”

Where does Scripture squarely contradict this notion?

Luke 2:22-24.

There, it says that Mary and Joseph were acting “in accord with the dictate of the law of the Lord” when they “purified” Mary and Jesus by the “sacrifice” of “a pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons.”

If you turn to Leviticus 12, you will see that the divine purpose of the sacrifice is to purify them of Mary’s “flow of blood” in giving birth.

A flow of blood would squarely contradict in partu virginity. It entails a breaching of the flesh.

This is hardly evidence that the Pope was wrong. Jesus and Mary went through the proscribed rituals as an example to us, even if they really didn’t need to. Afterall, Jesus was baptized, even though he had no sins to repent. When John the Baptist objected, Jesus told him to baptize him anyway because he must fulfill all that was righteous.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

This is hardly evidence that the Pope was wrong. Jesus and Mary went through the proscribed rituals as an example to us, even if they really didn’t need to. Afterall, Jesus was baptized, even though he had no sins to repent. When John the Baptist objected, Jesus told him to baptize him anyway because he must fulfill all that was righteous.

I disagree. If Mary invoked the purification ritual when she did not need it, it would not have been “in accord with the dictate of the law of the Lord.”

Additionally, Mary’s act would have amounted to a public lie, using God’s ritual, in God’s Own temple.

I think that Mary’s sacrifice meant that she bled.

She bled only if she breached physical integrity.

Therefore, she is not an “in partu” virgin.

Jesus “opened her womb” precisely as Luke 2:23 provides.

Pope Martin erred.

 

[paul_c]

I disagree. If Mary invoked the purification ritual when she did not need it, it would not have been “in accord with the dictate of the law of the Lord.”

Additionally, Mary’s act would have amounted to a public lie, using God’s ritual, in God’s Own temple.

I think that Mary’s sacrifice meant that she bled.

She bled only if she breached physical integrity.

Therefore, she is not an “in partu” virgin.

Jesus “opened her womb” precisely as Luke 2:23 provides.

Pope Martin erred.

Come on, Peter. Mary going through the expected purification ritual after childbirth is an example of her following the expectations of a righteous Jewish woman, whether she actually bled or not. It would have brought on scandal if she had refused to go through the purification rite, don’t you think?

As for claiming its a lie for Mary to be purified even if she didn’t need it, do you then consider it a lie that Jesus was given John’s baptism of repentence even though he had no sin to repent? In each case, they were providing an example of what a righteous person was expected to do.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

Come on, Peter. Mary going through the expected purification ritual after childbirth is an example of her following the expectations of a righteous Jewish woman, whether she actually bled or not. It would have brought on scandal if she had refused to go through the purification rite, don’t you think?

As for claiming its a lie for Mary to be purified even if she didn’t need it, do you then consider it a lie that Jesus was given John’s baptism of repentence even though he had no sin to repent? In each case, they were providing an example of what a righteous person was expected to do.

When you imply that Mary was consciously lying by being purified when she did not need to be, to avoid scandal, you are contradicting the divinely inspired narrator. God the Holy Spirit assures us, through the narrator, that when Mary did what she did, what she did was “in accord with the dictate in the law of the Lord.” Read Luke 2:24.

A public lie to avoid scandal would not have been “in accord with the dictate in the law of the Lord.”

I stand by my original claim – Martin I erred. The Church is erring down to the present moment, by standing by the doctrine.

Ergo, infallibility is not what many think it is.