M
mlchance
Guest
I doubt it.
Which documents of Innocent I and Gelasius I? Which canon of Trent? I’ve recently read all of the canons of Trent dealing with the Eucharist, and not a one mentions infants.
– Mark L. Chance.
- Status
Which documents of Innocent I and Gelasius I? Which canon of Trent? I’ve recently read all of the canons of Trent dealing with the Eucharist, and not a one mentions infants.
– Mark L. Chance.
C
challenger
Guest
It is scriptural- see Robert Sungenis’ debate with James White on papal infallibility (availalbe in cassette form on www.catholicintl.com)
If you do not believe it, then you are not, for practical purposes, Catholic. There are many other reasons for accepting infallibility- the witness of the Fathers (where could they have gotten that idea?), and the practicality of the whole matter. Would Christ the Teacher only teach for three years, in a small corner of the world?
How would He prolong His teaching? By having the Bible written? If this was the only rule of faith, why didn’t He protect the copyists and translators from making errors? There are many such other considerations.
If you do not believe it, then you are not, for practical purposes, Catholic. There are many other reasons for accepting infallibility- the witness of the Fathers (where could they have gotten that idea?), and the practicality of the whole matter. Would Christ the Teacher only teach for three years, in a small corner of the world?
How would He prolong His teaching? By having the Bible written? If this was the only rule of faith, why didn’t He protect the copyists and translators from making errors? There are many such other considerations.
B
barsapp
Guest
Pius IX. Syllabus. ****V. ERRORS CONCERNING THE CHURCH AND HER RIGHTS. ****23. Roman pontiffs and ecumenical councils have wandered outside the limits of their powers, have usurped the rights of princes, and have even erred in defining matters of faith and morals.—Damnatio “Multiplices inter,” June 10, 1851.
K
Kay_Cee
Guest
Well, I’ll try.
I think you mean Pope Sixtus V (reigned 1585-1590). What he did was botch a revision of the Latin Vulgate Bible. He wanted to have his version (which was laden with error) promulgated by a papal bull declaring it to be the one true translation. The bull was drafted, printed, and made ready for posting.
And then the pope (who up till then had enjoyed excellent health) died, very quickly, after a brief illness. The bull was never signed.
Personally, I think it was the Holy Spirit’s way of saying, “Oh no you don’t!”
You can find this story and many others in Patrick Madrid’s Pope Fiction.
C
challenger
Guest
I don’t believe Sixtus V would’ve been wrong. From an email I wrote:
Yes, the pope could make a heretical statement while being coerced- but not infallibly. If God cannot lie (even while being coerced), then when God is making the pope infallible, the pope cannot lie. No pope is capable of “breaking his charism of infallibility”- God hath given it, and God will take it away. He would have damaged the faithful, yes, but, strictly speaking, he could have.
Yes, if he sent it to the entire Church he would be acting in his capacity as pope. However, he would not have been teaching on a matter of faith unless he said- “This here Bible, now, it don’t contain no errors.” Even Jerome’s Vulgate may have significant errors- for example, the use of “holocaustis” in Genesis 22, and the transposition of lambs, sheep, tending, and feeding in John 21 (although, to be fair, this does depend on the Greek manuscript used).
As we know (unless you are one of the proponents of Peshittic, or KJVic supremacy), any Bible has errors. Promulgating such a Bible does not break infallibility unless you say it has no errors. Now, if *Aeternus Ille * had said something to that effect, and the other criteria for infallibility were in place, then yes, this would be an example of papal infallibility. However, since Aeternus Ille is largely no longer extant, we cannot know.
From what people claim they have of the Bull, Sixtus V said that it was to be held “true, lawful, authentic, and unquestioned”. We say that the present Bible we have is true, but we recognize for the errors of copyists who might write omega instead of omicron, thus changing the mood of a verb from the indicate to the subjunctive.
As for “authentic”, did Sixtus V say, “Completely authentic to the original manuscripts?” No. We can say, “John is a good boy”, but that doesn’t mean John never does anything bad.
“Lawful” means just that- the Bibles being pumped out by Protestants which didn’t have the Deuts, added “alone” to Rom 3:28, etc., were not considered lawful. “Unquestioned” applies similarly.
Supposedly, Sixtus V said he was doing it by virtue of his apostolic authority. This fulfills criterion #2 of Vatican I, and to promulgate the Bible officially would fulfill criterion #1. But let’s review criterion #3:
“…[when] he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church”
Promulgating a Bible is not defining a doctrine. The four things Sixtus V said of the Bible cannot be said to be defining doctrine, either (unless it was that, “The Bible is true”, in which case he would not be saying anything untrue). Thus, criterion #3 of Vatican I is missing.
Yes, the pope could make a heretical statement while being coerced- but not infallibly. If God cannot lie (even while being coerced), then when God is making the pope infallible, the pope cannot lie. No pope is capable of “breaking his charism of infallibility”- God hath given it, and God will take it away. He would have damaged the faithful, yes, but, strictly speaking, he could have.
Yes, if he sent it to the entire Church he would be acting in his capacity as pope. However, he would not have been teaching on a matter of faith unless he said- “This here Bible, now, it don’t contain no errors.” Even Jerome’s Vulgate may have significant errors- for example, the use of “holocaustis” in Genesis 22, and the transposition of lambs, sheep, tending, and feeding in John 21 (although, to be fair, this does depend on the Greek manuscript used).
As we know (unless you are one of the proponents of Peshittic, or KJVic supremacy), any Bible has errors. Promulgating such a Bible does not break infallibility unless you say it has no errors. Now, if *Aeternus Ille * had said something to that effect, and the other criteria for infallibility were in place, then yes, this would be an example of papal infallibility. However, since Aeternus Ille is largely no longer extant, we cannot know.
From what people claim they have of the Bull, Sixtus V said that it was to be held “true, lawful, authentic, and unquestioned”. We say that the present Bible we have is true, but we recognize for the errors of copyists who might write omega instead of omicron, thus changing the mood of a verb from the indicate to the subjunctive.
As for “authentic”, did Sixtus V say, “Completely authentic to the original manuscripts?” No. We can say, “John is a good boy”, but that doesn’t mean John never does anything bad.
“Lawful” means just that- the Bibles being pumped out by Protestants which didn’t have the Deuts, added “alone” to Rom 3:28, etc., were not considered lawful. “Unquestioned” applies similarly.
Supposedly, Sixtus V said he was doing it by virtue of his apostolic authority. This fulfills criterion #2 of Vatican I, and to promulgate the Bible officially would fulfill criterion #1. But let’s review criterion #3:
“…[when] he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church”
Promulgating a Bible is not defining a doctrine. The four things Sixtus V said of the Bible cannot be said to be defining doctrine, either (unless it was that, “The Bible is true”, in which case he would not be saying anything untrue). Thus, criterion #3 of Vatican I is missing.
R
Reid
Guest
Just catholic: you said you agree that the Pope is the head of the Church.
The “what if” is irrelevant because lets say the Pope made a ridiculous statement or claim well Jesus left that authority for His Church to make, now that being said, the God whom makes the laws and the rules are not bound by them.
Now take a look how beatiful this Miracle is, Jesus gave us a Church, that is solid as a rock, the gates of hell willl not prevail against it, he promised to be with us for all time, when we fall to our sinful ways we can always come back to the church and ask for forgiveness, when we do not understand we can seek advice, isnt nice that we do have have been blessed with the gift from the Holy Spirit that our Popes can be infallible when need be.
Would you rather have or be apart of a Church that was not infallible?
- what is his role as Pope?
- do you believe this means he is sin free?
The “what if” is irrelevant because lets say the Pope made a ridiculous statement or claim well Jesus left that authority for His Church to make, now that being said, the God whom makes the laws and the rules are not bound by them.
- Now is there a statement that a Pope has made that you have seen error? beside the one that said he is infallible when he speaks from the seat of peter.
Now take a look how beatiful this Miracle is, Jesus gave us a Church, that is solid as a rock, the gates of hell willl not prevail against it, he promised to be with us for all time, when we fall to our sinful ways we can always come back to the church and ask for forgiveness, when we do not understand we can seek advice, isnt nice that we do have have been blessed with the gift from the Holy Spirit that our Popes can be infallible when need be.
Would you rather have or be apart of a Church that was not infallible?
S
Sherlock
Guest
JustCatholic,
Yes, I do believe the popes are infallible. Nor is it some doctrine that you can dispense with and still consider yourself a good Catholic. I would suggest that you study this doctrine in depth before you make such definitive statements, as I suspect you may not fully understand what’s involved. I say this because your statement, “but what happens when some future Pope declares something that never was written about in history or the Catholic people never pushed for anyway?”, reveals a misunderstanding of just what infallibility is. It’s a protection from teaching error; a negative charism in the sense that it is a protection.
You wrote: “Like I last posted, where he might decree Mary as a co redeemer, along with Jesus, where she can forgive sins, just as God?” The pope is protected from teaching error, therefore it will never happen that he will infallibly teach and present as a teaching of the Church, the idea that Mary forgives sins. However, I don’t think you understand the word “co-redeemer”. “Co”, in this case, is the Latin usage and simply means “with”—it does NOT imply an equality, though that is what we as modern Americans think of when we hear “co” used. To say that Mary is “co-redeemer” is not erroneous, properly understood, nor does it imply an equaity, as she is a creature, not the Creator.
Yes, I do believe the popes are infallible. Nor is it some doctrine that you can dispense with and still consider yourself a good Catholic. I would suggest that you study this doctrine in depth before you make such definitive statements, as I suspect you may not fully understand what’s involved. I say this because your statement, “but what happens when some future Pope declares something that never was written about in history or the Catholic people never pushed for anyway?”, reveals a misunderstanding of just what infallibility is. It’s a protection from teaching error; a negative charism in the sense that it is a protection.
You wrote: “Like I last posted, where he might decree Mary as a co redeemer, along with Jesus, where she can forgive sins, just as God?” The pope is protected from teaching error, therefore it will never happen that he will infallibly teach and present as a teaching of the Church, the idea that Mary forgives sins. However, I don’t think you understand the word “co-redeemer”. “Co”, in this case, is the Latin usage and simply means “with”—it does NOT imply an equality, though that is what we as modern Americans think of when we hear “co” used. To say that Mary is “co-redeemer” is not erroneous, properly understood, nor does it imply an equaity, as she is a creature, not the Creator.
R
RobNY
Guest
Wow, I never knew that happened! Can you give me links to this story. I’d love to read it. Please.
-Rob
H
herry
Guest
Dear Justcatholic,
You are absolutley right. If a pope decrees something that is simply wrong, we are not to accept it. So the only way we can know if He is in error is if we search the scriptures for ourselves (see 2 Tim. 3:15-17). An example of this is, right after Jesus said the famed words to Peter in Matthew 16, Peter makes a grave error, and Jesus calls him “satan”. Read all about Peters first error in Matthew 16:21-23.
Plus, Jesus gave common Christians the same binding and loosing power 2 chapters later in Matthew 1816-20.
You are absolutley right. If a pope decrees something that is simply wrong, we are not to accept it. So the only way we can know if He is in error is if we search the scriptures for ourselves (see 2 Tim. 3:15-17). An example of this is, right after Jesus said the famed words to Peter in Matthew 16, Peter makes a grave error, and Jesus calls him “satan”. Read all about Peters first error in Matthew 16:21-23.
Plus, Jesus gave common Christians the same binding and loosing power 2 chapters later in Matthew 1816-20.
C
challenger
Guest
I believe he’s talking about Pope Vigilius. If so, it was an *empress : ) *I’m sure there’s a blurb on Vigilius at newadvent.org
S
Sherlock
Guest
No, the pope is protected from “decreeing” something that is simply wrong. That’s what infallibility is, a protection against doing that. Peter’s error that you mention was one of misunderstanding, not of teaching or decreeing to others.
Also, Jesus did NOT give “common Christians” the power to bind and loose. Those are the apostles he gives that power to in the verses cited. Those who do not have apostolic succession have no such ability to bind and loose. How is it that my neighbor can bind (retain) a sin of mine that then will be bound in heaven? That doesn’t even make sense.
N
NotWorthy
Guest
NO, NO, NO! Jesus gave this power to the Apostles. Sherlock is right.
The power to teach infallibly is held by the Pope and the College of Bishops.
Is the pope infallible, NO! Just when he teaches “Ex Cathedra”. If we are going to explain doctrine, please make sure we explain it correctly, please.
NotWorthy
K
kaycee
Guest
Is there a list of “Ex cathedra” pronouncements we can read?
A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
Once we decide which teachings are on faith and morals, then I’d like to apply some of my own criteria as to whether they are infallible. You may disagree; I’m not telling the Church what to do.
If it can be proven wrong, and sufficiently convincingly so, then it is time to look for a higher truth than than the truth as previously stated. If it cannot be reconciled with science and other methods of discovering truth, then something has to go.
Also I think that infallibility means that as far as the Church is concerned, this is what we officially profess as an organization. This doesn’t bother me a bit. To then extend that authority as being not only God given, but God micromanaged, means that the pope really doesn’t have the authority but God does and the pope is just a pawn. Maybe that’s how it works. This is quite a stretch, though, for most worldly minds, and it seems to me harping on it does little good because the real issue IMO is not whether we believe in infallibility, but whether we are to be obedient to the Church in our actions. In other words, love covers a multitude of sins and love is greater than faith; so I’d rather aspire to be a infallibility-denying skeptic and help the Church with my stewardship, than be an intellectual assenting academic who goes around telling people they are marginal catholics.
In short, papal infallibility is important on paper, and that’s fine. Whether each of us believes it and has the exact right understanding of it is irrelevant, except as an excuse for us to argue with each other. It’s not like someone is going to pull out the “infallibility” card and all of a sudden gay activists are going to bow down and realize they were wrong. Could happen, I’m saying I’d bet against it in any particular random case.
Alan
- it cannot be technology dependent, or dependent on any other fleeting thing that is non-lasting. (of course technology may be used to help implement it but the faith and morality of something cannot depend on whether we have the technology to do it.)
- in order for it to be purely a matter of faith and morals, it has to be on a topic that cannot be discovered, proven or disproven, with science, mathematics or any other human invention.
If it can be proven wrong, and sufficiently convincingly so, then it is time to look for a higher truth than than the truth as previously stated. If it cannot be reconciled with science and other methods of discovering truth, then something has to go.
Also I think that infallibility means that as far as the Church is concerned, this is what we officially profess as an organization. This doesn’t bother me a bit. To then extend that authority as being not only God given, but God micromanaged, means that the pope really doesn’t have the authority but God does and the pope is just a pawn. Maybe that’s how it works. This is quite a stretch, though, for most worldly minds, and it seems to me harping on it does little good because the real issue IMO is not whether we believe in infallibility, but whether we are to be obedient to the Church in our actions. In other words, love covers a multitude of sins and love is greater than faith; so I’d rather aspire to be a infallibility-denying skeptic and help the Church with my stewardship, than be an intellectual assenting academic who goes around telling people they are marginal catholics.
In short, papal infallibility is important on paper, and that’s fine. Whether each of us believes it and has the exact right understanding of it is irrelevant, except as an excuse for us to argue with each other. It’s not like someone is going to pull out the “infallibility” card and all of a sudden gay activists are going to bow down and realize they were wrong. Could happen, I’m saying I’d bet against it in any particular random case.
Alan
C
challenger
Guest
No one gave you the right to add to Vatican I’s criteria, Alan. Vatican I says, “When these are in place, pope is infallible”- no further caveats. If you don’t believe all the Church proclaims to be the word of God, then you are a marginal Catholic.
Alan:
Alan:
Could you explain why it isn’t important to have certainty of what is true?
No, but faithful Catholics will bow down and realize homosexuality practices are wrong.
A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
I gave myself the right. I didn’t say I intended or expected or even desired the Church to implement them. In fact, I specifically stated, “You may disagree; I’m not telling the Church what to do.” Perhaps if you reflect on it, you are actually agreeing with my previous sentence. Anyway, it sounds like you understand my intent even if you missed a few words.
You might have missed the drift, so I’ll try to clarify. These are certain things I think I would like to see in infallible teachings. For example, if the Church taught infallibly that a child must be given a polio vaccination of a certain kind, and then a better one comes into place, that would be technology dependent. A silly example to be sure, because it may not be considered faith and morals.
Maybe the Church wouldn’t be that silly, but the government is. Unless things have changed since my youngest, there is a blood test (something about lactose intolerance I think) that is required by law to be done before a baby goes home from the hospital. Problem is, the baby has to be like 2-3 days old to run the test and now most women now go home sooner than that. So what do they do? In order to follow the law, they stick the baby for blood to take a test with known meaningless results, just so the parents can bring the baby back in and stick it again to take the test for real this time.
That’s the kind of foolishness that you get when laws are tied to technology that changes while the law perseveres.
Can you think of any infallible teachings that do not fit my requirements, and if so, then you might want to buy into them, no? Not as requirements, perhaps, but at least as descriptive characteristics.
It’s a need to know issue. If I’m the janitor all I need to know is how to get to work and when, what am I supposed to do, and where are the supplies to do it with. I don’t need to know, nor does the company need me to know, that those men I clean up after have decided unanimously to change the corporate logo. I don’t need a bunch of nerds coming in to spew a bunch of stuff at me that I can’t realy comprehend and don’t care about. What I care about is that they finish their spewing and get out so I can clean the stall behind them.
In the same way, I do not have to know every thought of the pope on faith and morals in order to live my simple life and do it properly. If I am happily married I really don’t need to know, for example, the intricacies of canon law on nulllity. If I were teachings on faith and morals, then I would need to be at least as much of an expert as I needed to teach properly.
You might protest, “there’s a difference between knowing it all and assenting to the fact that the pope knows it all.”
To this I say yes there is a rhetorical difference, but not a practical one. Either way if you don’t know the information it must not factor into your life in any way, except you get to boast that you would believe it if you actually knew what it was, compared to scummy Catholics such as I, who evaluate things as I hear them.
Faithful Catholics don’t need the infallibility card to realize gay practices are wrong. Even sola scriptura (except the most dishonest ones) agree it is objectively wrong. For crying out loud, anyone with a brain can see that it is at least strange if not flat out wrong.
I’m glad you agree with me that a claim of “infallibility” is likely to be wasted on gay activists. If that’s not what you intended to agree with me about, I apologize and stand awaiting correction.
Alan
B
BluegrassJimmie
Guest
At what point does the man elected pope become infallible? I mean, has Ratzinger’s teachings and thoughts and theology of the church always been infallible or only since he became the pope?
A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
If he’s infallible like God on issues of faith and morals, then wouldn’t he be beyond time? I’d guess anything he’s ever said about faith and morals is infallible.
Alan
M
mlchance
Guest
Well, I gather from your silence after a request for documentation means you either just made this stuff up (unlikely) or are ignorantly repeating some other person’s nonsense (likely).
The practice of infant Communion was never universal. It fell out of general usage in the West in the 9th century after an edict from the Council of Tours. “That infants and children not yet come to the use of reason may not only validly but even fruitfully receive the Blessed Eucharist is now the universally received opinion, but it is opposed to Catholic teaching to hold that this sacrament is necessary for their salvation (Council of Trent, Sess. XXI, can. iv)” (Catholic Encyclopedia, “Communion of Children”).
I can find no mention of infant Communion coming from either Innocent I or Gelasius I. Gelasius I did insist on the faithful receiving Communion in both kinds to combat an error of his day that any consumption of wine was sinful.
The Council of Trent (emphasis added):
Chapter IV. Finally, the same holy council teaches that little children who have not attained the use of reason are not by any necessity bound to the sacramental communion of the Eucharist; for having been regenerated by the laver of baptism and thereby incorporated with Christ, they cannot at that age lose the grace of the sons of God already acquired. Antiquity is not therefore to be condemned, however, if in some places it at one time observed that custom. For just as those most holy Fathers had acceptable ground for what they did under the circumstances, so it is certainly to be accepted without controversy that they regarded it as not necessary to salvation.
And the canon regarding this chapter:
Canon 4. If anyone says that communion of the Eucharist is necessary for little children before they have attained the years of discretion, let him be anathema.
– Mark L. Chance.
N
NotWorthy
Guest
The Gift of Infallibility is instilled when the person becomes the pope. Nothing they said before could be called an infallible statement simply because they later became pope.
Our Good German Shephard could have claimed that eating pizza will guaranty your salvation when he was a Cardinal, without conflicting with infallibility. Of courses, if he makes the same claim as a Pope… I may just start investing in Domino’s just to make sure.
NotWorthy
- Status