Rcia question about catholic infallibility

[Randy_Carson]

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.

Mary went through the post-childbirth purification ceremony for the same reason Jesus went through the post-childbirth circumcision ceremony: out of obedience to the Mosaic law. Both rites—purification (ritual cleansing of the mother) and circumcision (removing the foreskin of the child)—symbolized being freed from sin. Jesus and Mary underwent them not because they needed to be freed from sin but because they were Jews who followed the Mosaic law. That’s why Jesus was baptized: not because he needed it himself but to set the pattern for us to follow.

St. Thomas Aquinas explains Mary’s purification ceremony in this way:
As the fullness of grace flowed from Christ on to his Mother, so it was becoming that the Mother should be like her Son in humility: for “God giveth grace to the humble,” as is written James 4:6. (Summa Theologiae III:37:4)
St. Bernard wrote:
Nothing was impure in her conception, nothing impure in her birth; there was nothing to be cleansed, for the Child itself was the origin of all purity, and came into the world to purify it from sin. Truly, O happy Virgin, thou wast not in need of purification, but thou wouldst pass as a woman among women, as thy Son also passed for a child among children.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

Mary went through the post-childbirth purification ceremony for the same reason Jesus went through the post-childbirth circumcision ceremony: out of obedience to the Mosaic law. Both rites—purification (ritual cleansing of the mother) and circumcision (removing the foreskin of the child)—symbolized being freed from sin. Jesus and Mary underwent them not because they needed to be freed from sin but because they were Jews who followed the Mosaic law. That’s why Jesus was baptized: not because he needed it himself but to set the pattern for us to follow.

St. Thomas Aquinas explains Mary’s purification ceremony in this way:
As the fullness of grace flowed from Christ on to his Mother, so it was becoming that the Mother should be like her Son in humility: for “God giveth grace to the humble,” as is written James 4:6. (Summa Theologiae III:37:4)

Hi, Randy.

Neither rite ever freed any person from any sin at any time in human history, whether or not they were conceived immaculate.

Therefore, your logic breaks down.

As with Paul C, you, too, are ignoring the words of Luke 2:24. God, Himself, assures us that what Mary did was “in accord with the dictate in the law of the Lord.”

The law of the Lord says that because of the sacrifice, “she will be clean again after her flow of blood.”

This is the teaching of the Popes who gave us the Torah as part of the Catholic Old Testament.

Pope Martin I is contradicting those popes, and the Old Testament.

Pope Martin I erred.

Ergo, infallibility is not what many think it is.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Hi, Randy.

Neither rite ever freed any person from any sin at any time in human history, whether or not they were conceived immaculate.

Therefore, your logic breaks down.

As with Paul C, you, too, are ignoring the words of Luke 2:24. God, Himself, assures us that what Mary did was “in accord with the dictate in the law of the Lord.”

The law of the Lord says that because of the sacrifice, “she will be clean again after her flow of blood.”

This is the teaching of the Popes who gave us the Torah as part of the Catholic Old Testament.

Pope Martin I is contradicting those popes, and the Old Testament.

Pope Martin I erred.

Ergo, infallibility is not what many think it is.

Putting aside the question of Mary’s purification, then, what is infallibility?

 

[Peter_Dawson]

Putting aside the question of Mary’s purification, then, what is infallibility?

We may not be able to finish thinking about it, because, being “of God,” it is ineffable.

So, the question may be innately unanswerable.

Pope Liberius is said by John Hardon, S.J., to have condemned his own teaching on the Arian heresy.

If so, one of those two declarations must be mistaken.

 

[Randy_Carson]

We may not be able to finish thinking about it, because, being “of God,” it is ineffable.

So, the question may be innately unanswerable.

Pope Liberius is said by John Hardon, S.J., to have condemned his own teaching on the Arian heresy.

If so, one of those two declarations must be mistaken.

Peter-

How would you explain the infallibility of the Pope and the Catholic Church to a friend?

 

[Peter_Dawson]

Peter-

How would you explain the infallibility of the Pope and the Catholic Church to a friend?

“Somehow, ultimately, the Church is a more reliable teacher than other organizations.”

 

[Randy_Carson]

“Somehow, ultimately, the Church is a more reliable teacher than other organizations.”

More reliable is good, I suppose, but is the Church infallible, that is, protected from error, when teaching on matters of faith and morals?

 

[tjm190]

Putting aside the question of Mary’s purification, then, what is infallibility?

Infallibility is the inability to come to error- “good” Catholics believe the RCC holds this power with respect to faith and morals when certain conditions are met. For some reason non-Catholics are likely to be familiar (albeit, have a grave misunderstanding of) with Papal infallibility, but not others.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

More reliable is good, I suppose, but is the Church infallible, that is, protected from error, when teaching on matters of faith and morals?

Pope Liberius condemned his own teaching. John Hardon assured me, before he died, that that is the proper understanding of his Catechism.

Therefore, one of Pope Liberius’ sentences squarely contradicts your affirmation.

Therefore, a pope disagrees with you.

 

[paul_c]

Pope Liberius condemned his own teaching. John Hardon assured me, before he died, that that is the proper understanding of his Catechism.

Therefore, one of Pope Liberius’ sentences squarely contradicts your affirmation.

Therefore, a pope disagrees with you.

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

 

[Randy_Carson]

Pope Liberius condemned his own teaching. John Hardon assured me, before he died, that that is the proper understanding of his Catechism.

Therefore, one of Pope Liberius’ sentences squarely contradicts your affirmation.

Therefore, a pope disagrees with you.

Peter-

I think you missed my question. I will ask it again:

Is the Catholic Church infallible when teaching on matters of faith and morals?

 

[Peter_Dawson]

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

Hardon told me that whereas Statement #1 by Liberius no longer exists as a matter of record (Hardon suggested that this was probably because Liberius condemned his own prior teaching), Statement #2 condemning his own prior teaching – in other words, the critical one – does still exist, as a matter of record.

The first statement, approving of one of the three Arian formulae for the Trinity, was complemented by the Arian Roman Emperor, and rejected by Saint Athanasius and St. Jerome.

The more critical of the two Statements is #2, since it is the one in which the pope condemns his own teaching.

I’ve read the Catholic Encyclopedia article. It’s not persuasive of anything, and is awash in obscurantive details.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

Peter-

I think you missed my question. I will ask it again:

Is the Catholic Church infallible when teaching on matters of faith and morals?

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?

 

[dcdurel]

The Catholic Church is infallible. That means the Church cannot teach error.

1. “The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals… The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium,” above all in an Ecumenical Council.[418] When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine “for belief as being divinely revealed,”[419] and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions “must be adhered to with the obedience of faith.”[420] This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.[421]

Thus, the Church councils, the Catechism, and other teachings of the bishops, that are authorized by the Popes are taught infallibly.

The Popes are also infallible by themselves
891. "The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals…

Thus all the definitive teachings in encyclicals and other documents and even those taught and proclaimed orally, intended for the whole Church, are infallibly taught by the Popes.

At the other end are Catholic and Protestant scholars, such as theologians, scripture scholars, etc. They are NEVER infallible and never have been.
All heresies in the Church originated from Catholic scholars.

Thus, we can’t trust the teachings of scholars, but we can trust the teachings of the Pope, when they are teaching as head of the Church for all Christians.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother flightkid,

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!

You might want to read this thread: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=381885

It addresses all your concerns, and it is only four pages, so it’s won’t take up too much of your time.

Blessings

 

[Peter_Dawson]

The Catholic Church is infallible. That means the Church cannot teach error.

1. “The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals… The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium,” above all in an Ecumenical Council.[418] When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine “for belief as being divinely revealed,”[419] and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions “must be adhered to with the obedience of faith.”[420] This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.[421]

Thus, the Church councils, the Catechism, and other teachings of the bishops, that are authorized by the Popes are taught infallibly.

The Popes are also infallible by themselves
891. "The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals…

Thus all the definitive teachings in encyclicals and other documents and even those taught and proclaimed orally, intended for the whole Church, are infallibly taught by the Popes.

At the other end are Catholic and Protestant scholars, such as theologians, scripture scholars, etc. They are NEVER infallible and never have been.
All heresies in the Church originated from Catholic scholars.

Thus, we can’t trust the teachings of scholars, but we can trust the teachings of the Pope, when they are teaching as head of the Church for all Christians.

That’s very fine and wonderful, dcdurel.

But will what happened and what happens in reality always fit your nice, neat categories?

That’s the importance of Pope Liberius condemning his own teaching.

 

[mardukm]

That’s the importance of Pope Liberius condemning his own teaching.

I really don’t care about what modern polemicists teach about Pope Liberius. I’ll go with Pope St. Athanasius’ own defense of Pope Liberius. He asserted that Pope Liberius held out under intense persecution, and lapsed only momentarily. Pope Liberius repudiated the formula he signed when he returned to his See. Obviously, the teaching that Pope Liberius condemned was not his own - he was forced to sign it under duress.

Blessings

 

[mardukm]

The Popes are also infallible by themselves

Not exactly. It is the Magisterium that is infallible, not the person who is Pope.

Thus all the definitive teachings in encyclicals and other documents and even those taught and proclaimed orally, intended for the whole Church, are infallibly taught by the Popes.

We can recognize them as being infallibly taught by the Pope only when he is defining a matter of Faith and morals. In other instances, we can recognize that it is taught infallibly only when the teaching is taught by ALL the bishops unanimously (or at least with moral unanimity) and absolutely, as well.

At the other end are Catholic and Protestant scholars, such as theologians, scripture scholars, etc. They are NEVER infallible and never have been.

You seem to be at the other end of the spectrum which claims EVERYTHING the Pope teaches is automatically infallible. The truth lies somewhere in between these two extremes.

Blessings

 

[Peter_Dawson]

I really don’t care about what modern polemicists teach about Pope Liberius. I’ll go with Pope St. Athanasius’ own defense of Pope Liberius. He asserted that Pope Liberius held out under intense persecution, and lapsed only momentarily. Pope Liberius repudiated the formula he signed when he returned to his See. Obviously, the teaching that Pope Liberius condemned was not his own - he was forced to sign it under duress.

Blessings

You do not understand that you have agreed with me.

Thank you for agreeing with me.

In an imperfect world, there never ISN’T duress, of some sort.

The purpose of an inspired Magisterium is to teach in that imperfect, duress-filled world.

Catholics who, like Randy Carson, maintain that the Church is infallible in the way that that word, infallible, is commonly understood, maintain that THE CHURCH WILL RELIABLY NOT ERR IN SPITE OF THE EVER-PRESENT DURESS IN OUR IMPERFECT WORLD.

Agreeing as you do (and as theologian John Hardon did) that Pope Liberius caved-in to duress and so intentionally taught error, misleading millions, squarely contradicts that commonly held view of papal infallibility.

Though you say that you do not have my problem, in fact you do, gentle friend.

 

[paul_c]

You do not understand that you have agreed with me.

Thank you for agreeing with me.

In an imperfect world, there never ISN’T duress, of some sort.

The purpose of an inspired Magisterium is to teach in that imperfect, duress-filled world.

Catholics who, like Randy Carson, maintain that the Church is infallible in the way that that word, infallible, is commonly understood, maintain that THE CHURCH WILL RELIABLY NOT ERR IN SPITE OF THE EVER-PRESENT DURESS IN OUR IMPERFECT WORLD.

Agreeing as you do (and as theologian John Hardon did) that Pope Liberius caved-in to duress and so intentionally taught error, misleading millions, squarely contradicts that commonly held view of papal infallibility.

Though you say that you do not have my problem, in fact you do, gentle friend.

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

Why are you, an alleged Catholic, so interested in tearing down Papal infallibility? And why use this example? It is clear that Liberius stood up against the Emporer in support of orthodoxy, despite being imprisoned and replaced by force, and that in the end, Catholicism prevailed over Arianism, consistent with the Apostolic teaching.