Rcia question about catholic infallibility

[Peter_Dawson]

Peter, there are many who beleive that Pope Liberius never made he statements attributed to him and that they were in fact, Arian forgeries…

In response to the “Arian forgeries,” St. Jerome groaned something like, “The world went to bed Christian and awakened Arian.” I’ll go with St. Jerome’s version – that Liberius caved-in – any day of the week. Jerome was a good man.

Hardon maintained that Liberius was the first pope never canonized BECAUSE Church officials were acutely aware that he caved-in on Church teaching.

The evidence out there is the kind of evidence that’s out there re ANY historical fact regarded as “sufficiently well documented.”

I think that it is wrong to ignore what appears to be the existing historical evidence just to preserve one’s prejudice respecting the nature of infallibility.

Pope Liberius condemned the statements but never admitted to issuing them himself (as far as I can tell). As the Catholic Encyclopedia noted, had Liberius truly capitualated, then the issue would have been closed and Arianism would have won the day. But he did not, and he regained the seat of St. Peter while keeping to the Catholic view.

None of that argument is really an argument. It’s 100% bootstrapping.

Why are you, an alleged Catholic, so interested in tearing down Papal infallibility?

Perhaps it is you who is tearing down infallibility. Perhaps infallibility is not what you think it is.

And why use this example?

I use another example: The contradiction between Pope Martin I’s teaching on in partu virginity in 649 A.D. and Luke 2:24.

And it’s not “clear” that Liberius did not cave. You appear to be deceiving yourself.

 

[paul_c]

In response to the “Arian forgeries,” St. Jerome groaned something like, “The world went to bed Christian and awakened Arian.” I’ll go with St. Jerome’s version – that Liberius caved-in – any day of the week. Jerome was a good man.

Hardon maintained that Liberius was the first pope never canonized BECAUSE Church officials were acutely aware that he caved-in on Church teaching.

The evidence out there is the kind of evidence that’s out there re ANY historical fact regarded as “sufficiently well documented.”

I think that it is wrong to ignore what appears to be the existing historical evidence just to preserve one’s prejudice respecting the nature of infallibility.

None of that argument is really an argument. It’s 100% bootstrapping.

Perhaps it is you who is tearing down infallibility. Perhaps infallibility is not what you think it is.

I use another example: The contradiction between Pope Martin I’s teaching on in partu virginity in 649 A.D. and Luke 2:24.

And it’s not “clear” that Liberius did not cave. You appear to be deceiving yourself.

We’ve talked about your view of Pope Martin and Luke 2:24. You are not in the least convincing when you say that Mary would have lied if she went to the purification ceremony without needing it. Jesus got circumcized and baptized without needed it either and you don’t say he was lying. In all these cases, Mary and Jesus were following the customs of the day as examples for all that followed it, whether they needed to personally or not.

As for Liberius, even if he did capitulate under pressure for a short period of time, which is far from certain, it is clear that he didn’t continue in this error and that ultimately the right call was made and the Apostolic truths were continued by the Pope.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

We’ve talked about your view of Pope Martin and Luke 2:24. You are not in the least convincing when you say that Mary would have lied if she went to the purification ceremony without needing it. Jesus got circumcized and baptized without needed it either and you don’t say he was lying.

You have missed my point.

No one – no one – “needed” circumcision, ever, in the history of man, in the innate sense. God only required it.

There was nothing different about Jesus’ circumcision, and Abraham’s. Neither was a source of grace. Both were God’s will.

Therefore, you are making no point.

Neither Mary, nor any other Jewish or Hebrew woman who ever gave birth in the history of man, innately “needed” the Leviticus 12 ritual. It was never a source of grace, for anyone. It was always only God’s will.

Therefore, you are not making a point.

Your words signify nothing. I still regard you as a brother in Christ, but your argument has zero innate value.

In all these cases, Mary and Jesus were following the customs of the day as examples for all that followed it, whether they needed to personally or not.

You are wrong.

God commanded these things in all cases, including in Mary and Jesus’ case.

Luke 2:24 even REQUIRES you to believe that God commanded it in Mary’s case.

This is the Church’s teaching, because the Church gave us Luke 2:24.

As for Liberius, even if he did capitulate under pressure for a short period of time, which is far from certain, it is clear that he didn’t continue in this error and that ultimately the right call was made and the Apostolic truths were continued by the Pope.

You are wrong on this. If Liberius caved-in, as it appears he did, then “infallibility” does not equal “always reliable, in a chronological sense, in an imperfect world.”

Randy Carson would disagree with you on this (although he might try to avoid admitting this – let’s watch).

 

[paul_c]

You have missed my point.

No one – no one – “needed” circumcision, ever, in the history of man, in the innate sense. God only required it.

There was nothing different about Jesus’ circumcision, and Abraham’s. Neither was a source of grace. Both were God’s will.

Therefore, you are making no point.

Neither Mary, nor any other Jewish or Hebrew woman who ever gave birth in the history of man, innately “needed” the Leviticus 12 ritual. It was never a source of grace, for anyone. It was always only God’s will.

Therefore, you are not making a point.

Your words signify nothing. I still regard you as a brother in Christ, but your argument has zero innate value.

You are wrong.

God commanded these things in all cases, including in Mary and Jesus’ case.

Luke 2:24 even REQUIRES you to believe that God commanded it in Mary’s case.

This is the Church’s teaching, because the Church gave us Luke 2:24.

You are wrong on this. If Liberius caved-in, as it appears he did, then “infallibility” does not equal “always reliable, in a chronological sense, in an imperfect world.”

Randy Carson would disagree with you on this (although he might try to avoid admitting this – let’s watch).

I never said that John’s Baptism, ritual cleansing after child birth or circumcision imparted Grace. They were , as you said, the accepted norm for righteous Jews and Mary and Jesus, as righteous Jews carried out their part. To say Mary must have bleed if she went through this ritual is no more true than saying that Jesus must have sinned if he got John’s baptism of repentence.

As for Liberius, you have no way to be sure that he caved in. You are basing your assumption based on the opinion of someone who lived 1700 years later. It is clearly a controversial subject but in the worst case scenario, Liberius would have caved in for a short period of time under duress before correcting himself. But the reality may be that he never caved in at all. The fact still stands that the Apostolic Truths have been perserved by the Papacy

 

[bookgirl32]

Peter,

I feel I must call attention to the fact that you are a dissident Catholic, in the sense we would understand it, as we attested to in our other thread considering the fall of man. It would be honest to let people know that you also don’t believe in Original Sin. Maybe I’m misrepresenting you, but you did attest to it in this thread: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=385852&page=2 — see post #21

Bookgirl32: Second of all, I do believe that a human actually committed the first sin, thus, original sin. You almost sound as if you think that God created us the way were are now so that we would have need for His grace. Would you say that is accurate?

Peter: I’ll accept that. There’s a little bit of “philosophical baggage” in your rendition, but it’s close enough to my view for me to ascribe to without material harm.

I only call attention to it because, in this thread, you refer repeatedly to “grace”. Using your denial of the Catholic dogma of Original sin (or your assertion that it is somehow not dogma and will change once the Church wises up) as an example of where you’re coming from, I think it’s safe to say you need to be a little more explicit in your beliefs. People think they are debating with someone who is Catholic, in the general sense of the term when used on this forum. You see yourself as Catholic, but not within the boundaries of anything akin to Church doctrine, teaching, dogma, or whatever you want to call it.

I’m only saying this because you are stating that we MUST believe Luke 2:24 as it is part of the Scripture that the Church is giving us. When looking at your interpretation of Genesis we can see that you have a very different one than the Church’s official interpretation. You can call yourself whatever you want, but in the name of being honest, you need to point out that you are not Catholic in the way that you are initially allowing people to believe when you start your arguments. I’m not saying you lie about it by any means, but you don’t call attention to it until someone notices, and that’s just not fair arguing, in my opinion.

I say this respectfully and could be totally wrong, so please correct me if I am.

 

[clmowry]

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.

By this logic then must we not also conclude that because Christ was baptized he must have sinned?

Chuck

 

[paul_c]

Peter,
Building on what Bookgirl said earlier, you may not understand how you come across. You state that you are Catholic in your profile, but you are clearly Protestant in your aproach, picking and choosing what you want to believe of Catholic Doctrine. While this may not seem abnormal to you, because afterall there are many “Cafeteria Catholics” in the world, there just aren’t many here on the CAF apologetics blog. After all, people log into these threads to get “Catholic” Answers and expect to get official church teaching from those that Call themselves Catholics. You are instead, calling your self Catholic but giving out dissident opinions. This can be confusing and forces the rest of us to provide the official Church teaching that others expect. I have noticed this on several threads in which you have engaged. It is fully fair game for you to express your opinions. Just acknowledge where you know your opinion contradicts official church positions so people understand the difference.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I answered that question up above. What God does is ineffable. Because divine action is ineffable, what infallibility is is not well defined.

Dream as much as you like that it is well-defined, it isn’t.

So, when you ask, “Is the Catholic Church infallible?,” and I say, “Of course it is!” (which I do), you will hear “X,” and I will mean something non-specific, because you think that you understand what it is, and I don’t, because I see the Church warring with inerrant Scripture for over 1,000 years, on the subject of in partu virginity.

Now, you are too intelligent to not understand all of this, which means that you are probably hoping that I will give you the equipment you need to enable you to play the “YOU HERETIC!!!” Accusation Game.

I won’t.

“The Catholic Church is infallible.”

But what does that mean, friend in Christ?

Just trying to understand where you’re coming from. Thanks for finally giving me an answer, friend.

 

[ccolley2]

This statement by John Hardon is highly disputed. Here’s the article on the incident from the Catholic Encyclopedia: newadvent.org/cathen/09217a.htm

This is taken from Karl Keating’s Catholicism and Fundamentalism

“They say that Liberius subscribed to a heretical formula while he was Pope. In fact, what he put his signature to was an ambiguous document that could be understood in either an orthodox or a heretical manner. When he did this, he was not a free agent. since he had been forced into exile by the Emperor. Even if the document had been strictly heritical, admitting of no orthodox interpretation, and even if Liberius signed it voluntarily, the issue of infallibility still would not have arisen since he signed only as a private theologian and was not signing something that purported to be a teaching that was to be held by all Christians. The requirements for an infallible papal teaching simply were not met.”
CC