The infallable pope

[TLara]

If I may, I don’t get your point here. The Immaculate Conception belief would have been considered heresy before it was declared to be dogma, so obviously the Catholic church has changed its positions on truth as well. Quite unfair to try and pin King Henry VIII for it without accepting any responsibility.

How do you not get her point. Answer this one question for me. Why did every monarch in England believe in Papal infallibility until henry the VIII wanted his annulment? We know that Henry the VIII thought that the Pope was the final authority for the church or he wouldn’t have waited so long for his judgment. If there was nothing to the Pope being head of the church why wait? why not have the bishops that where in England annul his marriage if all bishops are equal? I know that being head of the church and infallibility are two different things but what did Henry the VIII do as soon as he declared himself head of the church of England. He let every one know that the decisions he made for the church where to be believed by all as truth or risk your neck. It was his way of saying that now that he was head of the church he was infallible!

 

[nonjuror]

To Nonjuror :
First of all, sorry for replying so late, but I was quite busy today with my family, so it’s been quite impossible to reply earlier.

First of all, I am not at all ashamed of my name ! I am Catholic and proud of it. I think you did not fully understand my first post - or perhaps have I badly expressed myself, which is quite possible since I am not a native English speaker, so I apologise if my posts are a bit hard to understand.

Secondly, as I am not an apologist at all, I cannot answer the first part of your post, since I do not know what was the result of the “Seven Ecumenical Councils and the Consensus of the Greek fathers”, nor do I know Saint Vincent of Lerins’s works.

Anyway, I would like to discuss the last part of your post :

As far as I understand, from the informations I saw on your profile, you are an Anglican.
Now, correct me if I am wrong - which indeed is very possible, since, as I have told you, I am not an apologist at all - but as far as I know, the Church of England was founded by Henry VIII who, by the way, was a great defensor of the Catholic Church at the beginning of his reign. So he actually even admitted the Papal infallability when he was young.
And, from what I have learnt in History, he decided to leave the Church because the Pope would not grant him the annulement he was seeking. And his hatred towards the Catholic Church eventually grew to the point where he killed his friend Saint Thomas More, who had remained Catholic.

Anyway, if this is really true - and I repeat again, it might not be, since I just recall that from History lessons - this would lead us to the conclusion that the Anglican believe that till the 17th century, the Pope was indeed Peter’s successor and, as such, infallable.
Why did they then change their mind ?

To conclude, I would like to point out once again that I am not sure at all of what I have just written here, so please don’t feel hurt even if this post sounds like ‘I am right and you are wrong’ : it is what I have learnt at school so it is not necessarily true, and I will really be delighted if you correct that (I am not naive enough to believe everything I was taught at school, especially given the fact that many times I had to correct the teachers when they were talking about the Catholic Church).

God bless you !

===============================================
]**As far as I know the C.of E. was founded by Henry the Eigth!
**
Alina, (if you will permit?

Not wishing to be rude but the above is entirely without foundation! The Church had been in Britain since the beginning of Christianity, so we are told. Albanicus the early historian known as Gildas relates it thus**, "Meanwhile, these Islands received the beams of light _ that is the Holy precepts of Christ, the True Sun_ at the latter part, as we know , of the reign of Tiberius Caesar ** This fits in with the utterances at the Latin Councils of the mediaeval period, Basil , Pisa and Constance. There it said that the English Bishops took precedence of the French and Spanish, because the Church in England was founded immediately after the Crucifiction.

Regarding Papal Infallibility or indeed Jurisdiction!

I repeat, there is no mention in History, Tradition or Theology of the papacy.The Catholic faith rests in total, as far as I know, on 1.The Revelation of Christ,2. Scripture and 3. Tradition. (Councils and Fathers.) AS far as traditional Catholicity is concerned nothing claimed as dogma that is not reflected in any of those principles, is of the faith.
Madam, If you cannot discuss the above principals which are basic to an understanding of the Faith, you are working with both hands tied around your back. I’ve no wish to be pompous or nasty in anyway, but they are the basics of the matter. In fact they are the Magisterium of the One,Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

There was never a period when the powers of the pope were a matter of faith. There was certainly a time when these ideas gained ground, but at no time were they added to the Deposit of Faith. They were merely false or tentative ideas that had gained a hold on peoples minds, HERESY? Several times through the middle ages various Kings attempted to protest against the powers of the popes! William the Conquerer, Henry the Second, Richard the Second and King Edward the First. England supported the Councilist pressure for reform also. Further Infallibillity was never a problem because the Romanist Church in England or Ireland didn’t press the matter. In fact, in Ireland your Church published a Handbook that specifically denied it, certainly till after the First Vatican Council.

The only claims to fame that the Bishop of Rome has is that he was made Patriarch of the West by an Ecumenical Council! All his other perquisites appear to come from the fraudulent publications, The Donations of Constantine and the Isadorean Decretals.

I look forward to hearing your reply and a fruitful discussion in the future.

Yours in Christ,

Non juror!

 

[TLara]

===============================================

]**As far as I know the C.of E. was founded by Henry the Eigth!
**

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

abucs,

After reading your post, I’m left wondering what was the Old Testament equivalent of Papal Infallibility?

There isn’t one.​

Israelite & Jewish religion was not the sort of religion that expresses itself by constructing elaborate bodies of doctrine composed of theological assertions. That kind of analytic thinking is not Hebraic or even Semitic, but Greek: it’s the kind of thing one finds in Plato & his successors, not in Genesis or Isaiah or Deutero-Isaiah. Biblical thought is pictorial & dynamic, not conceptual &** static**.

The priests at the local shrines gave torah, instruction - & that is about it; their other activities had not even the appearance of a connection with the RC doctrine. If people want to think of that way of operating as exercising infallibility, they are free to conceptualise it as such. If they think of the prophets as infallible - a case of sorts might be made - they also have to account for disputes between prophets & for unfulfilled predictions; as well as for prophecy outside Israel, as well as for prophetic oracles against king & priest.

Hope that helps

 

[Peter_J]

Answer this one question for me. Why did every monarch in England believe in Papal infallibility until henry the VIII wanted his annulment? We know that Henry the VIII thought that the Pope was the final authority for the church or he wouldn’t have waited so long for his judgment. If there was nothing to the Pope being head of the church why wait? why not have the bishops that where in England annul his marriage if all bishops are equal? I know that being head of the church and infallibility are two different things but what did Henry the VIII do as soon as he declared himself head of the church of England. He let every one know that the decisions he made for the church where to be believed by all as truth or risk your neck. It was his way of saying that now that he was head of the church he was infallible!

Why did every monarch in England believe in Papal infallibility until henry the VIII wanted his annulment? That’s a good question. I too would very much like to hear a Protestant answer that one – although, to be fair, I think first you ought to provide evidence that every monarch in England did, in fact, believe in Papal infallibility until henry the VIII wanted his annulment.

 

[mtr01]

The quote goes on:
And all the multitude held their peace: and they HEARD BARNABAS AND PAUL TELLING what great signs and wonders GOD HAD WROUGHT among the Gentiles BY THEM…

13 And after they had held their peace, JAMES answered, saying: Men, brethren, hear ME. 14 Simon hath related how God first visited to take to the Gentiles, a people to his name. 15 And to this AGREE the words of the PROPHETS, as it is written:…19 For which cause, I [JAMES] JUDGE…

Or Barnabas, Or Paul. Or James.

St. James?

You mean the PATRIARCH OF JERUSALEM! And as for Peter, the PATRIARCH OF ANTIOCH.

I like to defer to St. John Chrysostom (as you know, Patriarch of Constantinople) on this one:

And why, then, passing by the others, does He converse with Peter on these things? (John 21:15). He was the chosen one of the Apostles, and the mouth of the disciples, and the leader of the choir. On this account, Paul also went up on a time to see him rather than the others (Galatians 1:18). And withal, to show him that he must thenceforward have confidence, as the denial was done away with, He puts into his hands the presidency over the brethren. And He brings not forward the denial, nor reproches him with what had past, but says, 'If you love me, preside over the brethren …and the third time He gives him the same injunction, showing what a price He sets the presidency over His own sheep. And if one should say, ‘How then did James receive the throne of Jerusalem?,’ this I would answer that He appointed this man (Peter) teacher, not of that throne, but of the whole world. (Chrysostom, In Joan. Hom. 1xxxviii. n. 1, tom. viii)

[emphasis mine]

 

[mtr01]

What in pratel are you talking about? Roman Catholic isn’t found anywhere in Scripture either but yet you claim to be the one true Church that Christ founded upon Peter. Now isn’t your whole statement really boiling in the pot that is calling the kettle black?

“Roman” Catholic was a term coined by the Anglicans in the 19th century (as they fancied themselves the English Catholic Church), so of course that term wouldn’t be found in Sacred Scripture. However, “the Catholic Church” is indeed found in Scripture. If you look at Acts 9:31 in the Greek you will find:

31 Ἡ μὲν οὖν ἐκκλησία καθ’ ὅλης

The last three words (in English characters) are: ekklesia kath’ holos. ekklesia, means church, but what about “kath’ holos”? The online etymological dictionary says this about the word “catholic”:

from Gk. katholikos, from phrase kath’ holou, from kata “about” + gen. of holos “whole”.

Therefore, as you can plainly see, the Catholic Church is indeed mentioned in Sacred Scripture, in Acts 9:31.

 

[nonjuror]

How can you even type this? you obviously do not know the history of Christianity in Britain. There may have been Christians in Britain before the church officially sent delegates, but to say the church of England was founded shortly after the crucification is absurd.

 

[nonjuror]

"Be it known and declared that we all, individually and collectively, are in all humility prepared to defer to the Church of God and to the Bishop of Rome and to every sincere and godly Christian, so far as to love everyone according to his degree in perfect charity and to assist them all by word and in deed in becoming the Children of God. But for any other obedience, we know of none that he, whom you term the Pope, or Bishop of Bishops demand. The deference we have mentioned we are ready to pay to him as to every other Christian, but in all other respects our obedience is due to the jurisdiction of the Bishop of caerleon who alone under God is our ruler to keep us right in the way of salvation.

This should help clear your minds regarding the (name removed by moderator)ut of Roman missionaries and the papacy in the formation of Christianity in this country.

When war again flared up some years later the new bishops appointed by Augustine fled to the continent and left the field open to the Celts who recruited Christian Saxons and Celtic Youth who then missionised most of the country to the Cetic rite and Catholic Faith. It was the British ( Catholic ) Church who finally made England Catholic.

 

[rinnie]

Is your pope today anything at all like St. Peter was?? Puulease!

If he wasn’t why does he have the keys. Why would he have been chosen above othes; What was all that praying for when our last Pope died. Was their praying in vain, are you saying that they didnt have the power given from God to select the Pope.

So then are you saying Jesus lied to us when he said to Peter i give you the keys to the kingdom. So then you are saying that our whole faith is a lie? And is the Pope not the leader of the RCC.

And did you know St Peter, Do you know the Pope today, can you judge him, who are you to question him? If God put St Peter in charge, and gave him the authority to pass down the keys who are we to question this. And are you that sure that you can say that I am so wrong, that my Pope is not doing what Jesus Christ himself has asked of him. Are you really that sure, and could you face God with that answer. Remember everything we do and say we must remember we will answer for.

I will stand with my Pope, I will say that I can face God at this moment and say I believe that he is my Leader. I believe that God gave him the keys and through him the way to salvation. Yes I can say this with my whole heart and soul. 100%. Now can you say the opposite?

 

[nonjuror]

If he wasn’t why does he have the keys. Why would he have been chosen above othes; What was all that praying for when our last Pope died. Was their praying in vain, are you saying that they didnt have the power given from God to select the Pope.

So then are you saying Jesus lied to us when he said to Peter i give you the keys to the kingdom. So then you are saying that our whole faith is a lie? And is the Pope not the leader of the RCC.

And did you know St Peter, Do you know the Pope today, can you judge him, who are you to question him? If God put St Peter in charge, and gave him the authority to pass down the keys who are we to question this. And are you that sure that you can say that I am so wrong, that my Pope is not doing what Jesus Christ himself has asked of him. Are you really that sure, and could you face God with that answer. Remember everything we do and say we must remember we will answer for.

I will stand with my Pope, I will say that I can face God at this moment and say I believe that he is my Leader. I believe that God gave him the keys and through him the way to salvation. Yes I can say this with my whole heart and soul. 100%. Now can you say the opposite?

 

[Peter_J]

If he wasn’t why does he have the keys.

The Pope’s having the keys is not dependent on his personal holiness. Unless a Pope falls into heresy, he continues to be Pope until he dies or voluntarily steps down.

Don’t get me wrong. I can quite understand why someone would ask “Why does a Pope who is not at all like St. Peter (16th century Popes come to mind) nevertheless have the keys?” Certainly I think that if a very bad Pope were in office, then he ought to step down so that a better Pope could be elected. But the point is that he would not automatically cease to be Pope just because of a lack of personal holiness.

(To be fair, I think we’ve gotten off-track from what SIA was talking about. His statement was “Is your pope today anything at all like St. Peter was?? Puulease!” so presumably he wasn’t talking about corrupt Popes. Unless of course he considers Pope Benedict XVI to be one of those. )

 

[SIA]

It was ‘truth’ from the beginning. It had to be dogmatically stated in 1854 because so many people were attacking it as false. . .it did not ‘become’ true in 1854, it had always been true. Hopefully now you’ve read my post above it’s clearer, yes?

if that’s really and truly the case, then why did it take the over 1800 years to declare it as truth?

 

[SIA]

How do you not get her point. Answer this one question for me. Why did every monarch in England believe in Papal infallibility until henry the VIII wanted his annulment? We know that Henry the VIII thought that the Pope was the final authority for the church or he wouldn’t have waited so long for his judgment. If there was nothing to the Pope being head of the church why wait? why not have the bishops that where in England annul his marriage if all bishops are equal? I know that being head of the church and infallibility are two different things but what did Henry the VIII do as soon as he declared himself head of the church of England. He let every one know that the decisions he made for the church where to be believed by all as truth or risk your neck. It was his way of saying that now that he was head of the church he was infallible!

What you are saying here is not entirely true. The Reformers (to be) in England were questioning the doctrines of the Roman church long before Henry’s annulment. In fact, they showed where Henry’s marriage was not only not Biblical but also should never have been approved by the church by its own definitions. It was solidly for political reasons that Henry was given a dispensation from the pope to marry in the first place.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Hi SIA:

Again, the teaching was in place ‘from the beginning’ (just like the doctrine of the Trinity was there ‘from the beginning’) but it took time to become more fully understood.

Again, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception did not ‘magically appear’ in 1854 —it had ‘been there’ and was believed by Christians from the start. Though the Christian of AD 300 might not have used the ‘exact wording’ that the Pope used (just as the Christian of AD 300 would not have defined “the Trinity” in the way that we define it today), the understanding would be there.

As a child can understand the ‘intent’ of a parent’s voice tone, even if the child does not understand the words used. . .so with the early Christians and the ‘early’ understanding of Catholic teaching. As children grow, they understand the ‘sense’ of the words first, though they must grow even further to understand the **meaning **of those words.

A child seeing a parent’s ‘sad’ face could understand Mom or Dad was sad but not understand Mom or Dad telling the child “Grandpa has died”. When the child gets a little older, hearing “Grandpa has died” the child may comprehend the words but not understand what ‘died’ means. . .first picturing ‘dying’ as being temporary, for example, or later picturing dying as being an ‘absence’. It is only with maturity that the (now grown) person can understand to an extent the complexity of ‘dying’ and how it also means the entrance into ‘eternal life’.

Catholics had consistently known and taught that Mary was ‘full of grace’ (as St. Luke tells us). They had a ‘glimpse’ of what ‘full of grace’ meant. . .something ‘more’ than just ‘simply good’. As scholars studied the Bible and the parallels of the Old Testament, they realized the true nature of ‘full of grace’ and realized that Mary was not only ‘simply good’, she was of that ‘goodness’ that had been at Eve’s creation. . . conceived/created without sin. Christians believed this; Christians spoke of it, sang of it in hymns, taught it in their homes and their schools, for centuries.

It was only when some men, relatively recently, took phrases from the Bible in an attempt to **deny this teaching, **that it became necessary to ‘reaffirm it’. “Re-affirm” --not ‘create’.

The danger, of course, was that of a ‘modern world’ in which Catholics were quite literally ‘under attack’, living in societies where the people were themselves not only ‘nonCatholic’ but had embraced this new heretical teaching as being ‘true Christian teaching’. It was a response to **error being taught **(often in innocence by men who truly believed these errors) that truth had to be reaffirmed.

 

[abucs]

abucs,

After reading your post, I’m left wondering what was the Old Testament equivalent of Papal Infallibility?

Hi Peter, i’ll just wing the answer as i’m not on the internet for long.

Jesus spoke of obeying those on the Throne of Moses. He spoke of the Pharisees being on that throne at his present day.

So it would be reasonable to assume that since Moses, Aaron, … etc there was an authority on the chair of Moses to be obeyed.

Jesus also spoke to (the Pharisees i think) about divorce and answered them when they said Moses allowed them to. Jesus said that it wasn’t always like that from the beginning but Moses allowed it because …

 

[PerryJ]

To Nonjuror :
As far as I understand, from the informations I saw on your profile, you are an Anglican.
Now, correct me if I am wrong - which indeed is very possible, since, as I have told you, I am not an apologist at all - but as far as I know, the Church of England was founded by Henry VIII who, by the way, was a great defensor of the Catholic Church at the beginning of his reign. So he actually even admitted the Papal infallability when he was young.
And, from what I have learnt in History, he decided to leave the Church because the Pope would not grant him the annulement he was seeking. And his hatred towards the Catholic Church eventually grew to the point where he killed his friend Saint Thomas More, who had remained Catholic.

Anyway, if this is really true - and I repeat again, it might not be, since I just recall that from History lessons - this would lead us to the conclusion that the Anglican believe that till the 17th century, the Pope was indeed Peter’s successor and, as such, infallable.
Why did they then change their mind ?

To conclude, I would like to point out once again that I am not sure at all of what I have just written here, so please don’t feel hurt even if this post sounds like ‘I am right and you are wrong’ : it is what I have learnt at school so it is not necessarily true, and I will really be delighted if you correct that (I am not naive enough to believe everything I was taught at school, especially given the fact that many times I had to correct the teachers when they were talking about the Catholic Church).

God bless you !

Your post is correct.

You will find most that post on these threads will easily attack the concept of the Papacy or even failures of the Pope. Few will admit to the sins of the ones that started their own religion. Henry VIII, Luther or Calvin were all despicable in there personal lives. Yet Protestants tend to somehow believe they were inspired. I am not sure how they reconcile these thoughts.

As we know St. Paul changed his ways. The individuals that have impacted Christendom were all walking away from Christ and became more and more debauched in their personal lives. I think the two are correlated. All three listed above are murderers plain and simple; yet, Protestants hold them out as enlightened? One can see their sins increased as their heresies increased.

 

[nonjuror]

Your post is correct.

You will find most that post on these threads will easily attack the concept of the Papacy or even failures of the Pope. Few will admit to the sins of the ones that started their own religion. Henry VIII, Luther or Calvin were all despicable in there personal lives. Yet Protestants tend to somehow believe they were inspired. I am not sure how they reconcile these thoughts.

As we know St. Paul changed his ways. The individuals that have impacted Christendom were all walking away from Christ and became more and more debauched in their personal lives. I think the two are correlated. All three listed above are murderers plain and simple; yet, Protestants hold them out as enlightened? One can see their sins increased as their heresies increased.

===============================================

"Few will admit to the sins of the ones that started their own religion"

I am a Catholic! Made so by baptism as I was taught and by being baptised I became a Member of Christ and a Child of God.
I suppose it is my luck that your personal verification was not and is not yet, needed.I pray that this state of affairs will continue!
Christ is the Head of my Church and I am a member of the Body of Christ.
It is a canard, that Henry the 8th, is the founder of the Church in
England and in my life time no proof has yet been tendered to prove this rubbish. It is little more than wishful thinking on your part!

For your information, I have never thought that Henry was anything other than a cruel boor and thief. But, I have a publication here , a collection of lives of the Popes, normally I do not use it in discussions, but if I were you, I wouldn’t press this point too far! Or indeed the cruelties of our Christian ancestors except to say that it was ,on the whole indefensible.

I have never any objections to discussing my Church or Faith as long as the people involved behave reasonably and know something of the questions involved, you friend remind me of the quotation from Luke “Enthusiasm over reaching knowledge.” Not exact I know, but I’m sure you get the point!
Non Juror!

 

[Peter_J]

Hi Peter, i’ll just wing the answer as i’m not on the internet for long.

Jesus spoke of obeying those on the Throne of Moses. He spoke of the Pharisees being on that throne at his present day.

So it would be reasonable to assume that since Moses, Aaron, … etc there was an authority on the chair of Moses to be obeyed.

Jesus also spoke to (the Pharisees i think) about divorce and answered them when they said Moses allowed them to. Jesus said that it wasn’t always like that from the beginning but Moses allowed it because …

I don’t understand how that last paragraph relates to Papal Infallibility, but I like the way you bring “those on the Throne of Moses” into the discussion. I think if more Catholic used that comparison it might help us to get away from some of the, shall we say, overly enthusiastic views of Papal Infallibility that are so prevalent. (Many Catholics speak of Papal Infallibility in such a “magic bullet” fashion that one is left wondering why the early Church bothered holding ecumenical councils, instead of just asking the Pope for the answer!) The “Throne of Moses” comparison seems to lend itself to a more measured and cautious view of Papal Infallibility – a view emphasizing that, when not making an ex cathedra statement (which is most of the time, presumably) the Pope might be corrupt in his policies, mistaken in his beliefs, even leading others into error (like the Pharisees). (I won’t even go into the whole “despicable in there personal lives” thing.)

 

[rinnie]

The Pope’s having the keys is not dependent on his personal holiness. Unless a Pope falls into heresy, he continues to be Pope until he dies or voluntarily steps down.

Don’t get me wrong. I can quite understand why someone would ask “Why does a Pope who is not at all like St. Peter (16th century Popes come to mind) nevertheless have the keys?” Certainly I think that if a very bad Pope were in office, then he ought to step down so that a better Pope could be elected. But the point is that he would not automatically cease to be Pope just because of a lack of personal holiness.

(To be fair, I think we’ve gotten off-track from what SIA was talking about. His statement was “Is your pope today anything at all like St. Peter was?? Puulease!” so presumably he wasn’t talking about corrupt Popes. Unless of course he considers Pope Benedict XVI to be one of those. )

Oh good point i didnt look at it that way at all. But I feel even if there are things that some Pope’s did do in the past were not what we would have agreed with, there still had to have been a reason. Who is to say what really did happen, or maybe sometimes the way things turned out wasnt what you had it mind, see what I mean. But I guess my point was really that the Keys are our proof that the Pope is in charge. And to argue what was right or wrong would be forever, and yes he wasnt perfect, that i agree with. But scripture is where he is infallable. Its the meaning of scripture where he is to teach us. To help us understand what Jesus was telling us. And it seems that, this is where things get blown out of control. But no matter what Jesus promised that no matter what, he will protect his Church. It would never be torn down. And it is still here. It was the first and it will be the last.