Would it be Possible to "Roll Back" or "Develop" V1's Papal Infallibility or is it Part of the Unchanging "Deposit of Faith"?

[phil19034]

I would say no to “roll back/nullify”

I would say yes to further develop.

 

[commenter]

would say no to “roll back/nullify”

I would say yes to further develop.

It already was developed further by Protestants, EO, and many other movements that have come and gone in many contradictory ways. Hans Kung developed it one way, and many other RC theologians developed it in other mutually contradictory ways.

How would you know which development is reliable? You trust the magisterium, only because it’s guided by… infallibility.

If develop infallibility so that the Trinity is only true for those who agree with it, or Christ’s presence in the Eucharist depends on the communicant’s opinion, how would you trust that “development”? Development from a now-limited magisterium?

 

[phil19034]

phil19034:

would say no to “roll back/nullify”

I would say yes to further develop.

It already was developed further by Protestants, EO, and many other movements that have come and gone in many contradictory ways. Hans Kung developed it one way, and many other RC theologians developed it in other mutually contradictory ways.

How would you know which development is reliable? You trust the magisterium, only because it’s guided by… infallibility.

If develop infallibility so that the Trinity is only true for those who agree with it, or Christ’s presence in the Eucharist depends on the communicant’s opinion, how would you trust that “development”? Development from a now-limited magisterium?

huh? I was simply replying that it is theoretically possible for further development. Not that it needs it, nor do I think it should be. But simply that it’s theoretically possible

 

[jcrichton]

I’d argue that the fact that there are hundreds of denominations all proclaiming to teach the Truth of Christ is proof that Papal infallibility is a necessary power of the office.

…and it is the reason why they fail to understand what Papal infallibility means–it does not mean the Pope is free from sin or inerrant in all matters; it means that the Holy Spirit abides in him and in matters of Faith he pronounces what God is Revealing to the world. This, of course, within the Teaching of the Church (which takes into account Apostolic Teaching in the Oral and Written Traditions).

Non-Catholics, while rejecting the Office of the Pope, actually determine everything they stake a claim to as inerrant and infallible… go figure!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

If develop infallibility so that the Trinity is only true for those who agree with it, or Christ’s presence in the Eucharist depends on the communicant’s opinion, how would you trust that “development”? Development from a now-limited magisterium?

This is exactly the problem with “middle ground” or “compromise:” everything becomes just another “acceptable” tenet. The best example of this are the Sacraments: Catholic – Seven Sacraments; non-Catholic – 1, 2, maybe 2.5, perhaps 3, optional, none…

Then there’s the “credo” and the various definition of what “Catholic” or “Christian” or “Salvation” or “Baptism” or “Faith” or “xyz” means.

This is where the old adage really takes place: ‘when you stand for nothing, you fall for anything.’

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Vonsalza]

…and it is the reason why they fail to understand what Papal infallibility means–it does not mean the Pope is free from sin or inerrant in all matters; it means that the Holy Spirit abides in him and in matters of Faith he pronounces what God is Revealing to the world.

Sure. It’s just that the “million dollar question” historically is “when is he inerrant?” and “when is he errant?” I’m not sure popes of previous centuries could tell as well as we think we can today. Moreover, are papal publications infallible? Take Humane Vitae. There are lots of Catholics on this board that would argue its infallibility. On the other hand, there are lots of bishops that demur when asked about the infallibility of the document.

Non-Catholics, while rejecting the Office of the Pope, actually determine everything they stake a claim to as inerrant and infallible… go figure!

I find this to rarely (if ever) be the case. Most non-Catholics would probably argue their beliefs as being the best interpretation of Church history and text; the result of “seeing through a glass darkly”, to use Paul. Even the perennially popular Spurgeon (among protestants) can be quoted as saying no one has it completely right.

Catholic apologists should probably consider dropping that blurb, given how rarely it’s true.

 

[Vonsalza]

This is exactly the problem with “middle ground” or “compromise:” everything becomes just another “acceptable” tenet.

It’s just a by-product of using your logic to figure something out when you can’t accept raw fiat, as the claim for papal infallibility is just that.
“It’s true because I say it is” is hard to swallow for folks with good, working brains.

This is where the old adage really takes place: ‘when you stand for nothing, you fall for anything.’

Reminds me of another truth I learned in biology and anthropology - the inflexible die.

 

[jcrichton]

Sure. It’s just that the “million dollar question” historically is “when is he inerrant?” and “when is he errant?” I’m not sure popes of previous centuries could tell as well as we think we can today. Moreover, are papal publications infallible? Take Humane Vitae. There are lots of Catholics on this board that would argue its infallibility. On the other hand, there are lots of bishops that demur when asked about the infallibility of the document.

Not an avid reader of historian, I don’t know the content of Humane Vitae or any other Papal writing; yet, what I understand is that not a single Pope has claimed their writing as infallible.

In the past, zealousness for the Faith has had some Popes claiming things as “anathema” and so forth; yet, this is right from Scriptures: that which is against the Faith is “anathema” and that which must be Taught or made into Doctrinal Teaching is put forth as Teaching from the Church–this is not a new “development.”

I find this to rarely (if ever) be the case. Most non-Catholics would probably argue their beliefs as being the best interpretation of Church history and text; the result of “seeing through a glass darkly”, to use Paul. Even the perennially popular Spurgeon (among protestants) can be quoted as saying no one has it completely right.

Catholic apologists should probably consider dropping that blurb, given how rarely it’s true.

I think that you fail to see beyond the surface; where schisms arise it is due to “believers ascertaining that their tenets are infallible.” The way that it is worded may be more familiar to you “Inspiration of the Holy Spirit” or some sort of tenet in the vein of: “as the early Church” or “the Biblical Church…” Yet, what it boils down to is “infallibility.”

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

It’s just a by-product of using your logic to figure something out when you can’t accept raw fiat, as the claim for papal infallibility is just that.
“It’s true because I say it is” is hard to swallow for folks with good, working brains.

It is true because Christ Delegated His Authority to the Church and He Promised that He would remain with her till the end of times and He Promised that He would Send the other Paraclete to Abide with her and in her forever.

Reminds me of another truth I learned in biology and anthropology - the inflexible die.

Exactly!

However, as with every Rule, there’s the exception: ‘not even the gate of hades would prevail against her!’

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Vonsalza]

It is true because Christ Delegated His Authority to the Church and He Promised that He would remain with her till the end of times and He Promised that He would Send the other Paraclete to Abide with her and in her forever.

Amen. But to most in Christendom, the paraclete is the Spirit. The bridge between the Spirit and papal infallibility is the one in question. Most would argue it isn’t there.

As Christ appointed 12 with Peter at the head, the model for dogmatic development might more likely be the body of bishops with “Peter” at the head - never “Peter” alone.

However, as with every Rule, there’s the exception: ‘not even the gate of hades would prevail against her!’

Of course I needn’t remind you that Catholics aren’t the only ones claiming to be “her”.

 

[LilyM]

jcrichton:

It is true because Christ Delegated His Authority to the Church and He Promised that He would remain with her till the end of times and He Promised that He would Send the other Paraclete to Abide with her and in her forever.

Amen. But to most in Christendom, the paraclete is the Spirit. The bridge between the Spirit and papal infallibility is the one in question. Most would argue it isn’t there.

As Christ appointed 12 with Peter at the head, the model for dogmatic development might more likely be the body of bishops with “Peter” at the head - never “Peter” alone.

However, as with every Rule, there’s the exception: ‘not even the gate of hades would prevail against her!’

Of course I needn’t remind you that Catholics aren’t the only ones claiming to be “her”.

But what happened when the 12 disagreed among each other? As they did even in Acts of the Apostles?

When Peter pronounced at that very first Church Council, where all the 12 gathered, did those who disagreed go ‘meh, his say doesn’t matter more than mine’?

Or ‘meh, we’re not unanimously behind him so that means we’re all free to do our own thing’?

No siree Bob. Even the ones who didn’t like his view in the end accepted his authority.

 

[Vonsalza]

But what happened when the 12 disagreed among each other? As they did even in Acts of the Apostles?

It looks like they held council.

When they had the issue of “Who replaces Judas?”, it was settled by a vote, not a Petrine/papal bull.

When Peter pronounced at that very first Church Council, where all the 12 gathered, did those who disagreed go ‘meh, his say doesn’t matter more than mine’?

Not at all. But neither did they say “Let’s just do what Peter tells us to”.

They. Held. Council.

Or ‘meh, we’re not unanimously behind him so that means we’re all free to do our own thing’?

No, Paul’s rebuke of Peter came later.

And to be fair, they did largely do their own thing. Scholarship is pretty well settled on the idea that the local Church had an enormous deal of autonomy. Roman centralization didn’t really get much underway until after Constantine endorsed it.

Papal power developed.

 

[Angel_Gabriel]

I’m one of those guys who thinks the Church lies somewhere on the road between Rome and Constantinople. Latins too loving of centralized power, Greeks too allergic to it.

I feel like this myself a lot of the time. I’m not sure if it’s possible to “roll back” papal infallibility…i think most Latins really want the Pope to be this supreme leader.

 

[jcrichton]

Amen. But to most in Christendom, the paraclete is the Spirit. The bridge between the Spirit and papal infallibility is the one in question. Most would argue it isn’t there.

As Christ appointed 12 with Peter at the head, the model for dogmatic development might more likely be the body of bishops with “Peter” at the head - never “Peter” alone.

As the Pope is never alone; the School of Bishops are as his disposal; I’ve not heard of a single case where Pope made a pronouncement (other than personal opinion) about the Faith without the assistance of the Bishops. When we look into even the Popes writings we find that they have been addressing issues that have been under scrutiny and investigation for decades, if not centuries–it is not as if a Pope (as it happens in other religious bodies) wakes up one day with a “vision” and the Catholic Church is turned on its axis to revolve around this “enlightened-just-got-inspired-nuance-tenet.”

Of course I needn’t remind you that Catholics aren’t the only ones claiming to be “her”.

Correct. Yet, Catholics are not claiming that they rediscover/reinvented the Church and that the “Church” that existed prior to her was not the true “Church” because the “true Church” had been underground till Pope “xyz” dug her up and freed her from “zyx” who had taken her from Christ and the Holy Spirit.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

No siree Bob. Even the ones who didn’t like his view in the end accepted his authority.

Which is the reason why the Gospel place Cephas as the first Called while the actual events differ:

2These are the names of the twelve apostles: first, Simon (who is called Peter) and his brother Andrew; James son of Zebedee, and his brother John; (St. Matthew 10)
16These are the twelve he appointed: Simon (to whom he gave the name Peter), 17James son of Zebedee and his brother John (to them he gave the name Boanerges, which means “sons of thunder”), 18Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James son of Alphaeus, Thaddaeus, Simon the Zealot 19and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him. (St. Mark 3)

While we know from the chronology that he indeed was not the first to encounter Jesus:

35… 39 He saith to them: Come and see. They came, and saw where he abode, and they stayed with him that day: now it was about the tenth hour. 40 And Andrew, the brother of Simon Peter, was one of the two who had heard of John, and followed him. 41 He findeth first his brother Simon, and saith to him: We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ. 42 And he brought him to Jesus. And Jesus looking upon him, said: Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is interpreted Peter. (St. John 1)

It is out of deference to Christ’s Authority that Cephas is placed as “first.”

Those who insist that there be a “vote” of “equal partners” are reaching beyond Christ’s Delegation and Apostolic Teaching.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

And to be fair, they did largely do their own thing. Scholarship is pretty well settled on the idea that the local Church had an enormous deal of autonomy. Roman centralization didn’t really get much underway until after Constantine endorsed it.

Wait, the same guy that claimed to have had a vision to use the Cross as his sign–who never actually was Baptized a Christian became the head of Christ’s Church? So he took on Christ and the Holy Spirit and removed from the Church as he took the reigns of Christendom?

Really?

You believe in the fable of Church apostasy, do you?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[commenter]

Papal power developed.

The New Testament took on a much greater role after the first few centuries. So you could say New Testament power “developed”. Some say the secular ruler had some influence on development of New Testament power.

Does that mean we can ignore the NT today, as Tainted and not Original? Should we all try to be genuine, pre NT Canon Christians? No man-made, 27 book Romish Canon for me!

 

[1Lord1Faith]

I also find the term “infallibility” to be unnecessary. It seems to cause more harm than good. I have trouble identifying it as good fruit.

I can see the benefits of having a leader in the papal office to make the ultimate decision, but there is no need to declare the office as having an irreversible/infallible power. That kind of power doesn’t seem to belong to humanity.

But I think that too often the occupier of the papal office finds himself wanting to settle a matter of faith or morals too hastily. Other times, the pope seems blind to an obvious problem. Those are problems that everyone has. So to give a person, including the pope, the power to declare a matter infallibly strikes me as problematic, and not in keeping with reason.

Why does the doctrine of papal infallibility not conflict with the doctrine of original sin?

 

[Vonsalza]

As the Pope is never alone; the School of Bishops are as his disposal; I’ve not heard of a single case where Pope made a pronouncement (other than personal opinion) about the Faith without the assistance of the Bishops.

Well… Humane Vitae is an example. Most bishops the pontifical commission thought Catholics should have access to contraceptives. The pope disagreed.

Correct. Yet, Catholics are not claiming that they rediscover/reinvented the Church…

Neither are the Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, Anglicans and so on. Really any faith that claims to visibly go back to the 1st cent.

For these groups, your counter here is a complete “miss”.

 

[Wesrock]

Roll back? No. It is part of the deposit of faith. Further define and nuance? Yes. Though V1 and V2 did give specific parameters already and weren’t blanket statements. And I’m not saying it needs further definitions or nuance, I’m just saying that we can’t rule it out.