:confused:What were those?
:confused:What was the occasion?
:confused:What brought them about?
:)Peace and kindness,:)
Fred
|
:confused:What were those?
:confused:What was the occasion?
:confused:What brought them about?
:)Peace and kindness,:)
Fred
Since the declaration of Papal Infallibility (under VERY limited circumstances) in 1870 it's been used just once: In 1950 when Pope Pius XII affirmed the Assumption of Mary.
Arguably, though, there were other times before the pronouncement in 1870...
From what I've read, no two scholars agree on the exact number of Papal pronouncements that should be considered Infallible.
RickJ,
Thanks for that.
I have heard that there were 2 or 3 times, but I don't know what they were.
Peace and kindness,
Fred
The "catch" is that the pronouncement affirms prior practice... even before the pronouncement... so that's where the debates lie: in confirming/affirming what pronouncements of previous popes should be considered ex cathedra.
RickJ,
Thanks much for your answer.
It helps somewhat.
But what were the rulings that were spoken from ex-cathedra?
Peace and kindness,
Fred
The Catholic Church doesn't officially define doctrine unless the doctrine is challenged. That is why the Church had not officially defined the doctrine of infallibility until the 19th century. Before then, it was taken for granted.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcura
Experts agree that these pronouncements are ex-Cathedra:
The decree of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary:
MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS
And that of her Immaculate Conception:
Papal Definition of the Immaculate Conception
But, since all Catholic doctrine is infallible anyway, it seems unnecessary to sift through 2000 years of history and figure out which Papal statements are infallible and which aren't.
However, that might be a task you want to undertake. If you do, remember to include 1 and 2 Peter.
:)
Sincerely,
De Maria
An earlier pope actually denounced the belief in papal infallibility, so it has not always been taken for granted even in your denomination.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
Actually, he denounced the idea that he wasn't infallible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
A group of Franciscan brothers were told to change a house rule that Father Francis of Assissi had set up. They argued that the rule had stood for centuries since Father Francis had presented it to the Pope presiding at that time and it was approved.
The Franciscan brothers argued the rule was protected by the infallibility of the previous Pope.
But that isn't what infallibility is about. Any Pope can change the rules and disciplines of any branch of the Church. Infallibility has to do with teaching doctrine to the ecumenical Church. Not with ettiquette and procedure of a certain order within the Church.
Sincerely,
De Maria
Actually, there is no evidence of belief in infallibility of anyone prior to that.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
Pope Clement I: "Owing to the sudden and repeated calamities and misfortunes which have befallen us… Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret… If anyone disobeys the things which have been said by him [God] through us [that you must reinstate your leaders], let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger… You will afford us joy and gladness if being obedient to the things which we have written through the Holy Spirit, you will root out the wicked passion of jealousy…" (Letter to the Corinthians 1:1, 58:2-59:1,63:2[A.D.80]).Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Cyprian of Carthage: "Would the heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?"(Letters 59 [55], 14)[A.D. 256]
Also Augustine, Sermon 131: "Rome has spoken; the case is closed."Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
See also Irenaeus, Adversus haereses 3.3.
This says nothing about infallibility.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
This one seems quite elusive. I am trying to have a look at the reference in context.Quote:
Cyprian of Carthage: "Would the heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?"(Letters 59 [55], 14)[A.D. 256]
Pope Clement speaks with confidence that his counsel will be correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Pope Clement believes God is speaking through him. It is reminiscent of what St. Peter said to Ananias:Quote:
If anyone disobeys the things which have been said by him [God] through us
Acts 5
4Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? And after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? Why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? Thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.
Here he confirms that he believes the Holy Spirit is speaking through him.Quote:
[that you must reinstate your leaders], let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger… You will afford us joy and gladness if being obedient to the things which we have written through the Holy Spirit,
Quote:
you will root out the wicked passion of jealousy…" (Letter to the Corinthians 1:1, 58:2-59:1,63:2[A.D.80]).
I could say the same when I read from scripture or if were to be given a word of knowledge from the Holy Spirit.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
That is the basis of the Church's belief in the Pope's and the Church's infallibility.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
So it is akin to me declaring myself as infallible. Okay. I understand now.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
De Maria,
Again you are right in face of Tj3's errored beliefs.
Peace and kindness,
Fred
My beliefs come from an infallible and inerrant source.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcura
Then WHY do YOU interpret some of it incorrectly??
I don't interpret it - it interprets itself. I don't rely on men to interpret scripture. Who do you rely on?Quote:
Originally Posted by arcura
I'm never sure what to make of the idea that Scripture interprets itself. Given the fact that intellectually honest, faith-filled, and diligent people come to divergent understandings (we don't have to call them "interpretations" if that term gives offense to some) of Scripture, it seems we are all obligated to support our claims to find particular truths affirmed in Scripture with appeal to something--if not Papal authority, then reasoned argument, or textual analysis... something, anyway, other than still more verses of Scripture the meaning of which can in turn be contested. There is no good reason I can see to suppose that disagreement over the meaning of Scripture emerges only where one or more of the parties to the disagreement are cognitively or spiritually deficient. In other words, there is genuine and honest disagreement. Each of us has to work to mitigate our own propensity to misunderstand God's word, and we do this in different ways. A rigorous discussion of the ways in which we do this is, I think, profitable.
From the Bible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
Of course the opinions of men can always vary and can always be contested. That is why scripture says that it is not to be interpreted by any man.Quote:
Given the fact that intellectually honest, faith-filled, and diligent people come to divergent understandings (we don't have to call them "interpretations" if that term gives offense to some) of Scripture, it seems we are all obligated to support our claims to find particular truths affirmed in Scripture with appeal to something--if not Papal authority, then reasoned argument, or textual analysis... something, anyway, other than still more verses of Scripture the meaning of which can in turn be contested.
Okay, fair enough. But that's who's reading it, us, eminently fallible men and women. I completely agree with you that the Bible does not make mistakes; but we do all the time. And so what do we, any of us, do when we come to an honest parting of the ways regarding the meaning of some passage or passages of Scripture? We've done our homework, we're making an honest and forthright effort to understand, and yet we come up with different answers? Do we all just go our own separate ways? That doesn't seem right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Now I don't mean to suggest that the understanding of Scripture should be a matter of mere consensus: majorities can err just as individuals can. So, as a practical matter, to what do we appeal, if anything, when two or more people come to an honest parting of the ways over the meaning of Scripture? There must be some means by which we can discern the truth from the error. (Of course, the really tricky case is when both, or all, participants to the disagreement are wrong but none knows it).
I, for one, am interested to hear anyone's thoughts on this.
Don't make me laugh.
It is OBVIOUS that YOU are the one that interprets Scripture. Your many errors prove that.
I see - rather than deal with the issue, you attack the person.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcura
That is when those who truly desire truth, put aside personal prejudices, put aside their own long held belifs, decide that their denominational distinctives will be submitted to God's word, and then we honestly and with all sincerity with a desire to find truth, see what God's word says, not our opinions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
After all, why do you think that God told us that NO man is to interpret the Bible? Did God err? Or did He mean what He said? Are we to say that He did not understand, and did not know what He was talking about, or do we take Him at His word?
Similar but not exact. The Word of God says:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
1 Timothy 3:15
But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
The Church accepts this charism and believes that she can only and ever uphold the truth of Jesus Christ.
The Word of God also says:
Matthew 16:18
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
The Church believes this is the self same charism protecting her from the snares of Satan.
We believe the promises of Christ.
OK. You first. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Certainly God and His Word are inerrant. But human beings are fallible and error prone. God didn't design His system so that His message could be lost by the fallible and error prone. It would negate His grace of inerrancy. In order for the Bible's grace of infallibility to be truly useful, there must exist an infallible interpreter. Therefore, God gave His Church the charism of infallibility. So that His message wouldn't be lost.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Again, I think what you say is fair enough. I just don't know what kind of a prescription it is. People can put aside lots of things, but there's still going to be disagreement. Say we set aside our denominational preferences and prejudices; say, also, that we carry-on in good faith, in a spirit of genuine humility. We are still going to disagree. After all, not all disagreement is the result of people being insincere or brainwashed by a denomination or ideology (and there is no one who is entirely free from, nor immune to prejudice of one sort or another): It just strikes me as uncharitable, even unkind, to believe that the only reason people understand Scripture differently is that they are in the grip of an ideology, or are mendacious, or insincere, etc. The most well-intentioned people, moved by the right impulses and instincts, can read Scripture differently. The problem, as we agree, isn't with Scripture; it's with us. And this is why the question stays with me: What then? Where do we go from there? How do we sort through the differences?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
I hope I expressed the concern in a way that makes sense.
The Word of God answers the question:Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
Matthew 18:17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.
This has happened throughout Christian history. The Arian heresy is a wonderful example. Who declared Arius a heretic. The Church.
But before that happened, first Athanasius and Arius debated. They both used Scripture to support their positions. But Athanasius also had Tradition on his side. Arius did not. The Church then pronounced Arius a heretic:
The Council interrogated Arius using Scripture, only to find that he had a new way of interpreting every verse they brought before him. Finally, they used the argument that Arius' view had to be wrong because it was new. Athanasius says, "But concerning matters of faith, they [the bishops assembled at Nicea] did not write: 'It has been decided,' but 'Thus the Catholic Church believes.' And thereupon confessed how they believed. This they did to show that their judgement was not of more recent origin, but was in fact of Apostolic times..." (Volume 1, Faith of the Early Fathers, p338). In this regard also, Athanasius askes rhetorically, "... how many fathers [in other words, the writings of the early Christians] can you cite for your phrases?" (Ibid, p325)
The Council of Nicea
Tj3,
Gee whiz Tom I did not intend to attack you and don't think I did, but if you think so I apologize.
I thought that I was just reminding you of the errors I believe you made just like you pointing out errors you believe I made.
So please accept my apology.
Peace and kindness,
Fred
Fred, pointing out errors would require that you provide scripture and then discuss in a respectful manner. I would look forward to that.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcura
The church of the living God is the body of ALL believers, not a denomination.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
The Word of God also says:
The church of the living God is the body of ALL believers, not a denomination.Quote:
Matthew 16:18
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
The Church believes this is the self same charism protecting her from the snares of Satan.
1 Cor 12:26-27
27 Now you are the body of Christ, and members individually.
NKJV
Right. The Holy Spirit.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
John 14:15-18
15 "If you love Me, keep My commandments. 16 And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever-- 17 the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you. 18 I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you.
NKJV
The problem is with us. Look around at the messages. We find people constantly referring to their own interpretations, their pastor, their denomination, their church, extra-Biblical sources, opinions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
Any doubt as to why we have variant views?
Like you said in the other message to Akoue. Look at us. I claim the Holy Spirit as well as you? Yet WE CONTRADICT EACH OTHER.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
So, as in the Arius/Athanasius dispute, there is one Judge which Jesus appointed to resolve Christian dispute:
Matthew 18 17 And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.
Therefore, the Church must be a living authority which one can locate and which has the authority to adjudicate the dispute.
Sincerely,
And that is the question which remains unanswered in the Scripture and Tradition Thread:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
So as not to derail this thread, please respond to it there if you so desire:Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/christ...ml#post1425642
Sincerely,
Two things. With all due respect (and this is not aimed at you personally), but claiming the Holy Spirit is not the same as having it, and secondly just having the Holy Spirit is not the same thing as allowing the Holy Spirit to speak to us through His word without adding man's interpretation to it.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
I think we can all agree on that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
This would make for an interesting thread topic.Quote:
and secondly just having the Holy Spirit is not the same thing as allowing the Holy Spirit to speak to us through His word without adding man's interpretation to it
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:59 PM. |