Scriptural basis for Papal infallibility?

[myfavoritmartin]

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.

So she is both the Mother of God and the Wife of God also a child of God???

This doesn’t work! Plus scripture clearly states she was married to Joseph, this would make her an adultress

 

[HailMary]

So she is both the Mother of God and the Wife of God also a child of God???

This doesn’t work! Plus scripture clearly states she was married to Joseph, this would make her an adultress

The BLESSED Virgin Mary is:
The Daughter of God the Father,
The Mother of God the Son,
The Spouse of the Holy Spirit.

Begin to contemplate what God has done for her…

“The Mighty One has done great things for me, and holy is his name”

 

[DJim]

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.

Tell you what–go ahead and put the two teachings side by side in your next post–tell me what you specifically have trouble with in the text, and I’ll explain why I believe they are reconcilable.

And what do you mean we have no idea what is infallibly declared? I told you how simple it is: The Magisterium cannot err in its universal, definitive teaching on faith and morals. The truth is out there. Sometimes it’s even infallibly proclaimed to be true by means of a dogmatic formula.

But even things not infallibly proclaimed by pope or council, but nonetheless taught universally and definitively in faith/morals–those things are still true and can’t be erroneous.

DJim

 

[Tantum_ergo]

So, martin, since Mary ‘conceived by the Holy Spirit’ while she was betrothed to Joseph, yet before they lived together. . .you’re making GOD into a fornicator, aren’t you?

IOW, when did God “stop” being the father of Jesus? He IS the Father, Mary IS the Mother, correct? But by your logic, Mary’s subsequent marriage and putative ‘normal’ relations with Joseph fly in the face of the fact that God neither ‘died’, nor set aside His ‘fatherhood’ of Jesus.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

Because the denial of this truth was used to attack other articles of faith, namely the divinity of Christ.

By this same theory, Galileo’s issue would then be a matter of faith as it would be used to attack the innerrancy of Holy Scripture.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

So, martin, since Mary ‘conceived by the Holy Spirit’ while she was betrothed to Joseph, yet before they lived together. . .you’re making GOD into a fornicator, aren’t you?

Not me, the person on here whom called Mary the spouse of the HS!

 

[Tantum_ergo]

What I find almost amusing is that so many Protestants ‘hang shy’ at the idea of “Catholic papal infallibility” and demand that we present a written (preferably double spaced and Scripturally footnoted) “List” of ALL ‘infallible teachings’.

While they themselves appear to have no problem accepting what ‘reformer X’ said one year, and consigning it ‘to the dust’ the next. Or to look at two diametrically opposed teachings and claim that 'if the Bible says it’s so, it’s so." In the first example, they prove that any given ‘teaching’ is ONLY to be accepted so long as the ‘majority’ rules. . .which is hardly Scriptural teaching. In the second, they are actually themselves treating the Bible as 'an infallible authority" (and make no mistake, it is AN 'inerrant source"), yet not only do they accept as ‘unhestitatingly’ an imperfectly comprehended or even what appears to be a contradictory teaching to that same Bible. . .any given ONE of them will make his (or his pastor’s or his Uncle Hiram’s etc.) INTERPRETATION of what the passage ‘says’ into an ‘infallible’ teaching EVEN IF THAT TEACHING CONTRADICTS ANOTHER PERSON’S INTERPRETATION.

So we have person A claiming, The Bible says A.
Person B: The Bible says not-A.

Both persons CANNOT BE CORRECT. And without an interpretative AUTHORITY, both persons may in fact be wrong to a degree-- since neither one can definitively explain exactly and totally what A itself really IS.

I would much rather deal with God’s well defined, Scriptural decision to have His Church be the interpratative authority for ALL His teachings, written and oral. . .

than have to deal with thousands of millions of people quarreling over THEIR interpretations of Scripture.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

Because Faith is an act of the will - it is defined here as an act of the intellect assenting to a truth which is beyond its grasp.

newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm

I know what faith is…How does the church ruling on this deem this as a MATTER of your faith

 

[HailMary]

I know what faith is…How does the church ruling on this deem this as a MATTER of your faith

I don’t think you understand, and I can’t help you if you have not the ability to comprehend the words myself and the others have typed so far.

 

[NotWorthy]

John what about doctrines like Mary’s sinlessness that where rejected by earlier generations?

What generations rejected this. Mary’s sinlessness is still rejected by Theologians. That doesn’t make it false.

You know both Augustine and Tertullian disagree with you on this…One says all knowledge was given to the apostles at that time (Tertullian) and the other says this speaks of ALL believers (Augustine) not just apostles/church as you call it.

The truth may have been given, but it wasn’t (and still isn’t you have to admit) completely understood. There would have been no reason for Nicaea and Chalcedon if the Apostles were given the Complete Truth (I’ll give you that) **and **the Complete understanding of the Truth (which we still don’t have, although we are much closer).

I’d like to see Augustine’s comments on the “all believers, not just the church” though. I understand the the Church has been most consistent in this teaching.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

So Martin, if God is the Father of Jesus, and Mary the Mother of Jesus, and Joseph is the ‘spouse’ of Mary, what exactly is Mary’s relation to God? Since when are ‘father’ and “mother” NOT UNITED IN SOME WAY???

 

[myfavoritmartin]

I don’t think you understand, and I can’t help you if you have not the ability to comprehend the words myself and the others have typed so far.

I understand all the others, you seem bent on tell me what faith is and I am saying, how is the church ruling a matter of YOUR faith.

That is what matters of “Faith and Morals” in regards to ex cathedra drives at, isn’t it?

 

[myfavoritmartin]

So Martin, if God is the Father of Jesus, and Mary the Mother of Jesus, and Joseph is the ‘spouse’ of Mary, what exactly is Mary’s relation to God? Since when are ‘father’ and “mother” NOT UNITED IN SOME WAY???

Sorry but I am going to quit getting sidetracked on this.
Forgive me?

 

[NotWorthy]

By this same theory, Galileo’s issue would then be a matter of faith as it would be used to attack the innerrancy of Holy Scripture.

'**That **is what got Galileo in trouble, in my understanding.

Once again, Galileo did not invent this teaching, it was formalized decades earlier by a priest, and the Church had no problem with it. Galileo just used this to attach the Church teaching on the inerrancy of Scripture.

 

[HailMary]

'**That **is what got Galileo in trouble, in my understanding.

Once again, Galileo did not invent this teaching, it was formalized decades earlier by a priest, and the Church had no problem with it. Galileo just used this to attach the Church teaching on the inerrancy of Scripture.

You can read more about it here.
src

 

[myfavoritmartin]

I’d like to see Augustine’s comments on the “all believers, not just the church” though. I understand the the Church has been most consistent in this teaching.

You made me dig, here you go. Thanks, for being at this thread friendly fire is much more…friendly.

Augustine refers to the passage as a reference to all believers gaining knowledge:

“Accordingly, when He says, ‘He will teach you all truth,’ or ‘will guide you into all truth,’ I do not think the fulfillment is possible in any one’s mind in this present life (for who is there, while living in this corruptible and soul-oppressing body, that can know all truth, when even the apostle says, ‘We know in part’?), but because it is effected by the Holy Spirit, of whom we have now received the earnest, that we shall attain also to the actual fullness of knowledge: whereof iris said by the same apostle, ‘But then face to face;’ and, ‘Now I know in part, but then shall I know even as also I am known;’ not as a thing which he knows fully in this life, but which, as a thing that would still be future on to the attainment of that perfection, the Lord promised us through the love of the Spirit, when He said, ‘He will teach you all truth,’ or ‘will guide you unto all truth.’…For in such a way will the Holy Spirit teach you all truth, when He shall shed abroad that love ever more and more largely in your hearts.” (Tractates on John, 96:4-5)

 

[myfavoritmartin]

'**That **is what got Galileo in trouble, in my understanding.

Once again, Galileo did not invent this teaching, it was formalized decades earlier by a priest, and the Church had no problem with it. Galileo just used this to attach the Church teaching on the inerrancy of Scripture.

Right!
So then why was the papal bull speculatores domus Israel, Not ex cathedra? if Mary’s Perpetual Virginity was???

 

[HailMary]

Right!
So then why was the papal bull speculatores domus Israel, Not ex cathedra? if Mary’s Perpetual Virginity was???

I believe that ex cathedra statments are used for teaching, not for the situation like Galileo, where you have a person who can potentially cause great harm to the faithful; he was excommunicated. But I may be wrong, anyhow why does it matter to you? Just curious. Would you like an ex cathedra statement by the Pope or a Ecumenical Council that Scripture does not have errors?

 

[NotWorthy]

You can read more about it here.
src

The Congregation took issue not with the movement of the celestial bodies around the sun but with Galileo’s statement that the sun did not move. Why is that? The key is in the book of Joshua: “Then spoke Joshua to the Lord in the day when the Lord gave the Amorites over to the men of Israel; and he said in the sight of Israel, ‘Sun, stand thou still at Gibeon, and thou moon in the valley of Ajalon.’ And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the nation took vengeance on their enemies. Is this not written in the book of Jashar? The sun stayed in the midst of heaven, and did not hasten to go down for about a whole day” (Josh. 10:12–14, emphasis added).

If the sun does not move, as Galileo affirmed, how could the Lord have commanded it to stand still? The Church had not made an infallible pronouncement on the proper interpretation of these verses.** Galileo, on the other hand, was making one: The sun does not move, meaning either Scripture is in error or the Church has to infallibly declare that the meaning of these verses is not literal.**

OK, this is what I was getting at. The Church did not condemn the science of it, it condemned the claim that the Scripture is incorrect.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

But I may be wrong, anyhow why does it matter to you?

Last time I was asked a similar question I tried to be transparent and honest and in turn I was berated for a week and called many names, I’ll just have to leave it to your imagination. Hope you understand.