Scriptural basis for Papal infallibility?

  • Thread starter Thread starter myfavoritmartin
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
lukewarm said:
So Papal Bulls aren’t infallible according to MannyFit, what is infallible then? Shouldn’t there be a simple list of actual infallibly declared Papal statements somewhere?

I can read what was stated at the council of Florence, I can’t use the mental gymnastics necessary to get that to jive with what the Church now teaches, they are blatantly contradictory statements.
Click to expand...
Jimmy Akin has an article to answer this.

catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0109bt.asp

Papal Bulls aren’t infallible period. If you cannot tackle this issue it is apparent you don’t have any faith in the Catholic Church, or even worst, having faith in Jesus Christ because he establish the Catholic Church.

The Pope have only used Ex-Cathedra twice. He announced that Mary is the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption.

They aren’t contradictory.

Tell me do you believe God is the God of mercy? He is even willing to spare a city with 10 righteous while the majority are unrepentant sinners.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church affirms this:

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but **who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates **of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337
 
Mannyfit75 said:
Jimmy Akin has an article to answer this.

catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0109bt.asp

The Pope have only used Ex-Cathedra twice. He announced that Mary is the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption.
Click to expand...
So are those two infallible statements the only ones I’m obligated to follow 100%? How can we call people “cafeteria Catholics” when there’s only two infallibly declared Dogma’s they must follow?
 
lukewarm said:
So Papal Bulls aren’t infallible according to MannyFit, what is infallible then? Shouldn’t there be a simple list of actual infallibly declared Papal statements somewhere?

I can read what was stated at the council of Florence, I can’t use the mental gymnastics necessary to get that to jive with what the Church now teaches, they are blatantly contradictory statements.
Click to expand...
No, they are not blatantly contradictory statements.

Magisterial teaching and conciliar formulas of such teaching are necessarily linked to the context and conditions of history within which they are proclaimed.

Similarly, one can come up with many Scriptural passages that appear “blatantly contradictory”–but how can they be if this is the infallible Word of God?

Just as with Scripture, the starting point for understanding the formulas of Magisterial teaching must be that the Holy Spirit protects the Church from teaching universal error in faith and morals. That’s His job.

Thus everything taught by the Magisterium universally and definitively in faith/morals is all true–and a lot of that truth is, furthermore, infallibly proclaimed and defined.

It’s also important to note that all of the infallibly proclaimed teaching does have a Pope connected with it. Infallible conciliar teaching does not receive the note on infallibility unless and until the Pope ratifies the work of the Council.

So, in that sense, everything infallibly taught by the Church is connected with the infallibility of the Pope. In addition, there are those rare occasions in which the Pope exercises the gift of infallibility as a personal prerogative (“ex cathedra” teaching).

DJim
 
DJim said:
No, they are not blatantly contradictory statements.

DJim
Click to expand...
Yes they are, one says no way none, and uses the term “absolutely necessary”, the other essentially invites salvation for all.

This muddied idea of Papal infallibility is so confusing my fellow Catholics have absolutely no idea what is infallibly declared and what isn’t.
 
lukewarm said:
So are those two infallible statements the only ones I’m obligated to follow 100%? How can we call people “cafeteria Catholics” when there’s only two infallibly declared Dogma’s they must follow?
Click to expand...
They aren’t. They are part of divine revelation. The Magisterium, that is the Bishops in union with the Pope also teaches the Trinity, Real Presence, etc.

I assumed you a Cafeteria Catholic. I recommend you read the 16 Document of the Second Vatican Council especially the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation Vatican Council II DEI VERBUM.
 
Mannyfit75 said:
How can you been certain if they are infallible? Are you expert in Canon Law? They aren’t infallible. Papal were never were.

Through Church history, the Pope have official use Ex-Cathedra by declaring the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary. The Magisterium of the Church also affirms other moral law like contraception as immoral evil.
Click to expand...
If the church cannot even distinguish properly in what area something belongs, then how can it ever be assured that it is correct.

Let us take the eternal virginity of Mary. Virginity or the loss thereof is a matter of science, not faith, we would call it biology. Therefore, if the Pope is not infallible in areas of science, he has no standing to proclaim Mary’s virginity dogma.
 
lukewarm said:
Yes they are, one says no way none, and uses the term “absolutely necessary”, the other essentially invites salvation for all.

This muddied idea of Papal infallibility is so confusing my fellow Catholics have absolutely no idea what is infallibly declared and what isn’t.
Click to expand...
You know I suggest you look at the Papal Document that declare Mary as the Immaculate Conception and Assumption and compare them to the Papal Bull you have read.

You will notice the difference in wording the documents.

The Assumption is stated in Munificentissimus Deus by Pope Pius XII

and the Ineffabilis Deus which defines the Immaculate Conception by Pope Pius IX.
 
myfavoritmartin said:
If the church cannot even distinguish properly in what area something belongs, then how can it ever be assured that it is correct.
Click to expand...
The Catholic Church can and she did. Much like the Council of Jerusalem which serves as model for future Councils in the centuries to come.
Let us take the eternal virginity of Mary. Virginity or the loss thereof is a matter of science, not faith, we would call it biology. Therefore, if the Pope is not infallible in areas of science, he has no standing to proclaim Mary’s virginity dogma.
Click to expand...
By definition infallibility does not include science. Infallibility deals only with faith and morals. The Perpetual Virginity of Mary (being a part of divine revelation based on the Traditions of the Christian Church) and with the guidance of the Holy Spirit affirms this belief. It is only in Protestantism, they departed from this belief.
 
Mannyfit75 said:
By definition infallibility does not include science. Infallibility deals only with faith and morals. The Perpetual Virginity of Mary (being a part of divine revelation based on the Traditions of the Christian Church) and with the guidance of the Holy Spirit affirms this belief. It is only in Protestantism, they departed from this belief.
Click to expand...
PV ? faith or morals?
 
myfavoritmartin said:
Is the infallible perpetual virginity a matter of faith or morals?
Click to expand...
Faith, of course. Christ would does not want people paint His Mother to have been a non-Virgin because she was the Spouse of the Holy Spirit and it was not in the flesh that she conceived.
 
Mannyfit75 said:
It’s faith. The Belief that Mary remain a virgin is faith. Much like other beliefs that cannot be explain by mere science.
Click to expand...
Oh and btw, we believe Mary was a virgin, an actual virgin, before, during, and after the birth of Our Lord Jesus Christ. This my friend, does take faith in the power of the Holy Ghost because it is beyond science, as Manny pointed out.
 
The simplest explanation is this.

It must be a public teaching to all the church in matters of faith and morals…

so, going on that requirement, which of these would be considered Infalible?

Each Scenario is Made Up so please don’t think these are true teachings
  1. We (The Church) approve the use of E-Z Cheese by various Heads Of States when attempting to discern if someone is not making the sign of the cross properly
  2. We (the church) Have discerner from scripture and holy tradition that walking backwards on the seventh Sunday of the month while holding your nose and singing the national anthem of Kurplakistan should be held to by all members of Christs Body.
  3. Since you, Ricky Bobby, decided to say that atoms also double as a good substitute for pepper, even though scripture says it is to be used like salt, are anathematized (Later it is found out that it isn’t good for salt either)
  4. The pope gets caught with a, um, lady of the night. but the next day makes a public statement on Faith and Morals
  1. Nope - this deals with the church approving how a government can proceed with various proceedings. It is something that really is directed at only a very few, and not the whole church, therefore, cannot be because it isn’t for the WHOLE church. It also doent deal with Faith and morals, but more how people respond to the faith.
  2. Yup, deals with faith and morals, and is directed at the WHOLE church
  3. Nope - directed at one person, even though the understanding is wrong
  4. Yup - the popes sin does NOT affect the status of an infallible statement
Again

It is a VERY limited power. ONLY deals with Faith and Morals during a Public Statement to the WHOLE church…

If any aspect is not met, it is NOT infallible.

Thats your guide line

Hope that helps
 
Mannyfit75 said:
It’s faith. The Belief that Mary remain a virgin is faith. Much like other beliefs that cannot be explain by mere science.
Click to expand...
I think you misunderstand me, from the “chair” Rome infallibly ruled that Mary remained a virgin…I know it takes faith to believe as such, but HOW is it a matter of faith?
 
myfavoritmartin said:
I think you misunderstand me, from the “chair” Rome infallibly ruled that Mary remained a virgin…I know it takes faith to believe as such, but HOW is it a matter of faith?
Click to expand...
Because the denial of this truth was used to attack other articles of faith, namely the divinity of Christ.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top