Two questions

[NorthTexan88]

I had three questions, the third is a bit random.

1. Papal Infalability: Is this a more recent development or has it always been since the time of St. Peter?
2. Was the original church suppos to be governed by Antioch rather than Rome? I read somewhere that that was the “original” plan.
3. Exorcism: Does the church still do exorcisms? And if they do then how can they prove that it is a real demon possession?

 

[yablabo]

I had three questions, the third is a bit random.

1. Papal Infalability: Is this a more recent development or has it always been since the time of St. Peter?

The infallible magisterium of the Roman Pontiff is a divinely revealed dogma, as the First Vatican Council teaches. That means that it was part of the deposit of faith given to the Apostles by Christ and the Holy Spirit which was sealed at the death of the Apostle St. John in 100 AD. However, the reason that such dogmatic definitions (or better stated, solemn judgments) are made is due to the fact that at specific times there is a preponderance of error which clouds the minds of the weak, vain and obstinate, and gradually causes those to sever themselves from the Mystical Body of Christ.

1. Was the original church suppos to be governed by Antioch rather than Rome? I read somewhere that that was the “original” plan.

The Church of Christ (i.e., the Catholic Church) was meant to be “centered” in Rome since that was the center of the civilized world at the time. While the Apostle St. Peter, the first Supreme Pontiff, did establish the See at Antioch, that does not contradict that Christ wanted Peter to “center” the Church of Christ in Rome.

1. Exorcism: Does the church still do exorcisms? And if they do then how can they prove that it is a real demon possession?

Exorcisms are still done, yes. The chief Vatican exorcist, Fr. Gabriele Amorth, has two books out regarding his experience as an exorcist priest, and the great need for exorcism in our day.

There are means of discerning extraordinary demonic activity. What is typically listed are things such as a repugnance for things with a spiritual character, extraordinary (preternatural) feats of strength, knowledge of that which the person could not possibly have learned by study, extraordinary (preternatural) behavior (i.e., levitation, literal chilling presence, etc.) and many others.

Also, exorcism is not limited to cases of possession, but also demonic obsession, oppression and infestation.

– Nicole

 

[DavidFilmer]

The various Catholic Answers tracts on the Papacy provide good insight, especially those noted as “(Fathers)” which contain excerpts of the writings of the Early Church Fathers themselves on these topics.

It is clear that the Church’s teaching on the Papacy extends back to the beginning of the Church. This teaching was defined in a more precise manner by the First Vatican Council in 1870.

 

[NorthTexan88]

1. Thanks for the help on the papacy. Was the Council of Nicea an example of when the pope used his supremacy?
2. So demonic possession still occurs today?
   Do you think that atheism could be a demonic possession or just free will? Also, I have heard that Hitler, muhammad, among others were demon possessed. Coul an exorcism have helped them frm murdering millions and creatin a false religion or do you have to be a Christian to receive one?

 

[Callum]

1. Thanks for the help on the papacy. Was the Council of Nicea an example of when the pope used his supremacy?

Actually, the Pope (St Sylvester I) didn’t turn up to the Council of Nicea, though he sent of couple of priests to represent him. One line of thought is that Sylvester thought it would be demeaning for him to travel all the way to asia minor to attend a Council convened by Emperor Constantine.

 

[yablabo]

1. Thanks for the help on the papacy. Was the Council of Nicea an example of when the pope used his supremacy?

At the First Council of Nicea the papal legate Hosius was present to show that the Roman Pontiff, by his supremacy, was convoking, celebrating and subsequently would confirm (upon investigation) the decrees of the Council.

1. So demonic possession still occurs today?
   Do you think that atheism could be a demonic possession or just free will? Also, I have heard that Hitler, muhammad, among others were demon possessed. Coul an exorcism have helped them frm murdering millions and creatin a false religion or do you have to be a Christian to receive one?

Yes, demonic possession still occurs today. Some people opine that it occurs today more than ever. I would say that opinion could likely be linked to the increase in the population over the years, etc.

Anyone can be exorcised. Christ showed that when he freed the daughter of the persistent Canaanite woman from a demon, albeit at a distance.

Fr. Amorth states that exorcisms do not help those who do not want to be helped. If a person has joined league with Satan, then the exorcism would do no good to free the man from that which he freely has chosen.

One could only speculate what good an exorcism may have done Mohammed or Hitler. I would guess that it wouldn’t make much difference, since, as Fr. Amorth says, to my recollection, that true devotion to Our Lord Jesus and His Immaculate Mother are necessary to relieve one fully from the clutches of the demons in general.

– Nicole

 

[wjp984]

I think papal infalability is a recent thing.

If the East and West were unified until 1054, and the East considers the Pope First among Equals, and there was not a problem with this until 1054, then my conjecture is papal infalibility is something recent.

Now let me explain by recent. What I mean is the dogma was not proclaimed until recently. It might have always been there for Roman Catholics but it was not proclaimed until later.

 

[pablope]

I had three questions, the third is a bit random.

1. Was the original church suppos to be governed by Antioch rather than Rome? I read somewhere that that was the “original” plan.

 

[razredge]

I had three questions, the third is a bit random.

1. Papal Infalability: Is this a more recent development or has it always been since the time of St. Peter?

A more recent development, St Peter seemed to listen to St Paul and James the Just rather than being the font of all spiritual knowledge infallibility would suggest.

 

[Church_Militant]

1. Thanks for the help on the papacy. Was the Council of Nicea an example of when the pope used his supremacy?
2. So demonic possession still occurs today?

Certainly, and we’re about the only ones who have trained clergy to deal with it.

Do you think that atheism could be a demonic possession or just free will?

Both…but I wouldn’t say that was the case in every atheist. There may be some, but definitely not all, by any means.

Also, I have heard that Hitler, muhammad, among others were demon possessed. Coul an exorcism have helped them frm murdering millions and creatin a false religion or do you have to be a Christian to receive one?

No one can make that statement with assurance. In Hitler’s case, it is certainly possible but Mohammed is a questionable case. Unless one knows his heart, how would we know? And, since we do not /can not know that, we must leave that to God and turn to the church for guidance. (See Catechism sections 839-845)

As for Christians and demon possession. Do you not know your New Testament? Generally there is no record of such a thing, but there is one cautionary passage in Luke 11: 24-26
24] “When the unclean spirit has gone out of a man, he passes through waterless places seeking rest; and finding none he says, `I will return to my house from which I came.’ 25] And when he comes he finds it swept and put in order. 26] Then he goes and brings seven other spirits more evil than himself, and they enter and dwell there; and the last state of that man becomes worse than the first.”

 

[Church_Militant]

A more recent development, St Peter seemed to listen to St Paul and James the Just rather than being the font of all spiritual knowledge infallibility would suggest.

I’m sorry, but that is a grossly misinformed opinion. I suggest that you read up on the papal histories and you’ll see that this was much discussed from early on in the church.

This article from CA’s online library might also help you some.
Papal Infallibility

 

[paul_c]

A more recent development, St Peter seemed to listen to St Paul and James the Just rather than being the font of all spiritual knowledge infallibility would suggest.

Razredge,
Papal infallibility is in effect when the Pope takes a position for the Church on an issue of Faith and morals. When the Pope takes such a position, you can be sure that he consults with his brother bishops before doing so, just as St. Peter did.

 

[inkaneer]

I think papal infalability is a recent thing.

If the East and West were unified until 1054, and the East considers the Pope First among Equals, and there was not a problem with this until 1054, then my conjecture is papal infalibility is something recent.

Now let me explain by recent. What I mean is the dogma was not proclaimed until recently. It might have always been there for Roman Catholics but it was not proclaimed until later.

Well your answer is misleading. Papal infallibility has always been a doctrine. However, like the majority of doctrines it was never formally defined. Usually formal definition does not occur until there is some serious controversy. Thus the canon of scripture was not formally defined until 1547 at Trent yet since 400 AD the 73 book canon was believed. By saying that it is recent you fall into the protestant allegation that the church “invented” the doctrine in the 19th century. As for the events of 1054 that is rooted in geopolitics and not anything theological. The filioque was a ruse. The emperor had run roughshod over the Eastern Church for centuries. Cesaropapism was alive and prospering in the East. But it never caught on in the Western Church despite the false allegations by protestants.

 

[razredge]

I’m sorry, but that is a grossly misinformed opinion. I suggest that you read up on the papal histories and you’ll see that this was much discussed from early on in the church.

This article from CA’s online library might also help you some.
Papal Infallibility

And I suggest you read an unbiased account of the history of papal infallibility and Vatican I, where the Pope and the Ultramontanists decided to compensate for the Papacy’s faltering temporal power by bolstering his spiritual power, despite opposition by many bishops at the council and much to the disappointment of clergy, theologians and laypeople around the world

Razredge,
Papal infallibility is in effect when the Pope takes a position for the Church on an issue of Faith and morals. When the Pope takes such a position, you can be sure that he consults with his brother bishops before doing so, just as St. Peter did.

That’s well and good, if it was put into practice which it all too often isn’t.

 

[paul_c]

And I suggest you read an unbiased account of the history of papal infallibility and Vatican I, where the Pope and the Ultramontanists decided to compensate for the Papacy’s faltering temporal power by bolstering his spiritual power, despite opposition by many bishops at the council and much to the disappointment of clergy, theologians and laypeople around the world

Why are you so cynical about the papacy? And what makes you think the account you took this from was unbiased

That’s well and good, if it was put into practice which it all too often isn’t.

Have you read an infallible papal bull? They are exceedingly well documented.

 

[Ignatius]

Pope and the Ultramontanists decided to compensate for the Papacy’s faltering temporal power by bolstering his spiritual power.

I hope you will not take offense, but That is actually contrary to Church teaching. Your posts are in serious error with regard to the subject. You might want to inform yourself on the teaching of The Church before presuming to speak about what She teaches. There are actually a good number of tracts the give the Authentic teachings of The Church on this and other subject.

Your brother in Christ.

 

[razredge]

Why are you so cynical about the papacy? And what makes you think the account you took this from was unbiased

I am not cynical about the papacy, cynical about papal infallibility and it’s abuse, yes.
One of the problems with papal infallibility is that many Catholics on here claim some statement of the other is infallible so reject any scientific/historical evidence that contradicts that statement.

It probably wasn’t completely unbiased but in any case their account is not making extraordinary claims that someone is infallible, so they are far less likely to be biased.

Have you read an infallible papal bull? They are exceedingly well documented

What does this have to do with your previous point about consulting the bishops beforehand

 

[razredge]

I hope you will not take offense, but That is actually contrary to Church teaching. Your posts are in serious error with regard to the subject. You might want to inform yourself on the teaching of The Church before presuming to speak about what She teaches. There are actually a good number of tracts the give the Authentic teachings of The Church on this and other subject.

Your brother in Christ.

Well, of course it is contrary to Church teaching since I’m disagreeing with Church teaching here (since 1870). If you actually read up on the history of Vatican I and Papal infallibility from non-biased sources you will see what i’m talking about.

 

[paul_c]

I am not cynical about the papacy, cynical about papal infallibility and it’s abuse, yes.
One of the problems with papal infallibility is that many Catholics on here claim some statement of the other is infallible so reject any scientific/historical evidence that contradicts that statement.

Okay. Let’s discuss this alleged abuse. Give us an example of an infallible claim that is contracted by scientifi/historical evidence. You understand the implications, right?
If you can prove that the Church is teaching an untruth, then the Church isn’t from God and there is no one you can believe in terms of salvation. Fortunately, like all those others that doubt the Church, you won’t be able to find an example because the Church really is from God and the Pope, when speaking ex-cathedra, really is infallible. After all, he’s only teaching what he himself has been taught. The chain runs back all the way through the Apostles to Jesus.

It probably wasn’t completely unbiased but in any case their account is not making extraordinary claims that someone is infallible, so they are far less likely to be biased.

The church is built on the extraordinary claim that Jesus rose from the dead. If you use your logic, then that would also be denied.

What does this have to do with your previous point about consulting the bishops beforehand

Because often in the papal bulls, they point out all their sources, including scripture, precedents and councils. Papal decisions are never made in a vacuum. The Popes understand far better than you and I how critical it is to get things right and they are VERY careful with that responsibility.

 

[paul_c]

Well, of course it is contrary to Church teaching since I’m disagreeing with Church teaching here (since 1870). If you actually read up on the history of Vatican I and Papal infallibility from non-biased sources you will see what i’m talking about.

So this is an important concession on your part. You realize you are opposing the Church. Now some time for introspection. Why do you feel you have it right and the Church has it wrong. Do you think you have more intellectual firepower than the 1.3Billion member Catholic Church? Do you think you have some special insight that the Church does not have?

I suggest you rethink your position. Its okay to question, But you aren’t questioning. You are stating definitively that you are right and the Catholic Church is wrong. A better approach would be to say to yourself: I don’t understand how the church could take this position, what am I missing? If you do this, you can learn. If you already assume you know everything, there is no way you can learn. To wit, several people have suggested here sources to clarify your misunderstanding. You have dismissed these out of hand because you assume you already know the truth.