[De Maria]

Again, as I said, the fact that there are very few specifically identified is because it is only a recent doctrine (1870 it was declared).

I disagree. Although it was recently confirmed and defined in Catholid Dogma. The doctrine has been accepted since the time of Christ. It has, however, rarely been used.

Sincerely,

De Maria

[Tj3]

I disagree. Although it was recently confirmed and defined in Catholid Dogma. The doctrine has been accepted since the time of Christ. It has, however, rarely been used.

Then you should read more of the thread. I already showed that Pope John XXII in 1324 declared that doctrine as coming from the "father of lies". We know therefore that it was not even accepted in your denomination at the highest levels prior to the 14th century.

[JoeT777]

Then you should read more of the thread. I already showed that Pope John XXII in 1324 declared that doctrine as coming from the "father of lies". We know therefore that it was not even accepted in your denomination at the highest levels prior to the 14th century.

Proof of papal infallibility from Tradition

"One need not expect to find in the early centuries a formal and explicit recognition throughout the Church either of the primacy or of the infallibility of the pope in the terms in which these doctrines are defined by the Vatican Council. But the fact cannot be denied that from the beginning there was a widespread acknowledgment by other churches of some kind of supreme authority in the Roman pontiff in regard not only to disciplinary but also to doctrinal affairs. This is clear for example, from:

• Clement's Letter to the Corinthians at the end of the first century,

• the way in which, shortly afterwards, Ignatius of Antioch addresses the Roman Church;

• the conduct of Pope Victor in the latter half of the second century, in connection with the paschal controversy;

• the teaching of St. Irenaeus, who lays it down as a practical rule that conformity with Rome is a sufficient proof of Apostolicity of doctrine against the heretics (Adv. Haer., III, iii);

• the correspondence between Pope Dionysius and his namesake at Alexandria in the second half of the third century;

• and from many other facts that might be mentioned (see PRIMACY).
Even heretics recognized something special in the doctrinal authority of the pope, and some of them, like Marcion in the second century and Pelagius and Caelestius in the first quarter of the fifth, appealed to Rome in the hope of obtaining a reversal of their condemnation by provincial bishops or synods. And in the age of the councils, from Nicaea onwards, there is a sufficiently explicit and formal acknowledgment of the doctrinal supremacy of the Bishop of Rome.

• St. Augustine, for example, voices the prevailing Catholic sentiment when in reference to the Pelagian affair he declares, in a sermon delivered at Carthage after the receipt of Pope Innocent's letter, confirming the decrees of the Council of Carthage: "Rome's reply has come: the case is closed" (Inde etiam rescripta venerunt: causa finita est. Serm. 131, c.x);

• and again when in reference to the same subject he insists that "all doubt bas been removed by the letter of Pope Innocent of blessed memory" (C. Duas Epp. Pelag., II, iii, 5).

And what is still more important, is the explicit recognition in formal terms, by councils which are admitted to be ecumenical, of the finality, and by implication the infallibility of papal teaching.

• Thus the Fathers of Ephesus (431) declare that they "are compelled" to condemn the heresy of Nestorius "by the sacred canons and by the letter of our holy father and co-minister, Celestine the Bishop of Rome."

• Twenty years later (451) the Fathers of Chalcedon, after hearing Leo's letter read, make themselves responsible for the statement: "so do we all believe.. . Peter has spoken through Leo."

• More than two centuries later, at the Third Council of Constantinople (680-681), the same formula is repeated: "Peter has spoken through Agatho."

• After the lapse of still two other centuries, and shortly before the Photian schism, the profession of faith drawn up by Pope Hormisdas was accepted by the Fourth Council of Constantinople (869-870), and in this profession, it is stated that, by virtue of Christ's promise: "Thou art Peter, etc."; "the Catholic religion is preserved inviolable in the Apostolic See."

• Finally the reunion Council of Florence (1438-1445), repeating what had been substantially contained in the profession of faith of Michael Palaeologus approved by the Second Council of Lyons (1274), defined "that the holy Apostolic see and the Roman pontiff holds the primacy over the whole world; and that the Roman pontiff himself is the successor of the blessed Peter Prince of the Apostles and the true Vicar of Christ, and the head of the whole Church, and the father and teacher of all Christians, and that to him in blessed Peter the full power of feeding, ruling and governing the universal Church was given by our Lord Jesus Christ, and this is also recognized in the acts of the ecumenical council and in the sacred canons (quemadmodum etiam.. . Continetur.

Thus it is clear that the Vatican Council introduced no new doctrine when it defined the infallibility of the pope, but merely re-asserted what had been implicitly admitted and acted upon from the beginning and had even been explicitly proclaimed and in equivalent terms by more than one of the early ecumenical councils. Until the Photian Schism in the East and the Gallican movement in the West there was no formal denial of papal supremacy, or of papal infallibility as an adjunct of supreme doctrinal authority, while the instances of their formal acknowledgment that have been referred to in the early centuries are but a few out of the multitude that might be quoted."


Source: New Advent (link)

This doesn’t sound like a doctrine “invented in 1870.” Rather, it is the re-asserting of a doctrine always understood to be true.

JoeT

[De Maria]

Then you should read more of the thread. I already showed that Pope John XXII in 1324 declared that doctrine as coming from the "father of lies". We know therefore that it was not even accepted in your denomination at the highest levels prior to the 14th century.

:eek: Lol!!

There's an old saying, "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing."

Pope John XXII actually said exactly the opposite of what you think he said. In reading Papal declarations, you need to take into account to whom it was written and why.

In Quia Quorundam, Pope John XXII was changing the disciplinary rule of a house of St. Francis. The Superiors of that house defied Pope John XXII saying that he couldn't change the rule which had been approved by previous Popes because Popes were infallible.

I assume you know what I'm talking about? Perhaps I'm assuming too much. Do you know what "the rule of a house" is? It is the regulation which tells the Superiors and the other members of an order, how many times to pray, what color of clothing to wear, when to sleep, when to wake, and stuff like that.

Pope John XXII rightly corrected their understanding of Papal Infallibility.

1. Popes and Bishops change disciplines and rules of the Church all the time. For example, the discipline of fasting on Fridays.

2. Papal Infallibility extends only to teachings on faith and morals from the chair of Peter intended for the entire Church.

So what did Pope John XXII call "a doctrine from the Father of Lies"? The idea that he, the Pope, did not have authority to change the rule of a Catholic order.

Sincerely,

De Maria

[Tj3]

Proof of papal infallibility from Tradition

I notice that throughout, you post references, but never provide quotes.

I note that you also have no way to refute what I actually quoted from the Pope, who is, after all, the highest authority in your denomination.

[Tj3]

:eek: Lol!!!

There's an old saying, "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing."

Pope John XXII actually said exactly the opposite of what you think he said. In reading Papal declarations, you need to take into account to whom it was written and why.

I know exactly who and why he said it - but the fact remains he was concerned that the doctrine of papal infallibility proposed would reduce the ability of the papacy to make decisions, and that is the point - clearly it did not exist as a doctrine in your denomination at that time. The source, according to the Pope, was the "father of lies". Nothing you say can change that fact.

[JoeT777]

I notice that throughout, you post references, but never provide quotes.

Proof of papal infallibility from Tradition

"One need not expect to find in the early centuries a formal and explicit recognition throughout the Church either of the primacy or of the infallibility of the pope in the terms in which these doctrines are defined by the Vatican Council. But the fact cannot be denied that from the beginning there was a widespread acknowledgment by other churches of some kind of supreme authority in the Roman pontiff in regard not only to disciplinary but also to doctrinal affairs. This is clear for example, from:

• Clement's Letter to the Corinthians at the end of the first century,

• the way in which, shortly afterwards, Ignatius of Antioch addresses the Roman Church;

• the conduct of Pope Victor in the latter half of the second century, in connection with the paschal controversy;

• the teaching of St. Irenaeus, who lays it down as a practical rule that conformity with Rome is a sufficient proof of Apostolicity of doctrine against the heretics (Adv. Haer., III, iii);

• the correspondence between Pope Dionysius and his namesake at Alexandria in the second half of the third century;

• and from many other facts that might be mentioned (see PRIMACY).
Even heretics recognized something special in the doctrinal authority of the pope, and some of them, like Marcion in the second century and Pelagius and Caelestius in the first quarter of the fifth, appealed to Rome in the hope of obtaining a reversal of their condemnation by provincial bishops or synods. And in the age of the councils, from Nicaea onwards, there is a sufficiently explicit and formal acknowledgment of the doctrinal supremacy of the Bishop of Rome.

• St. Augustine, for example, voices the prevailing Catholic sentiment when in reference to the Pelagian affair he declares, in a sermon delivered at Carthage after the receipt of Pope Innocent's letter, confirming the decrees of the Council of Carthage: "Rome's reply has come: the case is closed" (Inde etiam rescripta venerunt: causa finita est. Serm. 131, c.x);

• and again when in reference to the same subject he insists that "all doubt bas been removed by the letter of Pope Innocent of blessed memory" (C. Duas Epp. Pelag., II, iii, 5).

And what is still more important, is the explicit recognition in formal terms, by councils which are admitted to be ecumenical, of the finality, and by implication the infallibility of papal teaching.

• Thus the Fathers of Ephesus (431) declare that they "are compelled" to condemn the heresy of Nestorius "by the sacred canons and by the letter of our holy father and co-minister, Celestine the Bishop of Rome."

• Twenty years later (451) the Fathers of Chalcedon, after hearing Leo's letter read, make themselves responsible for the statement: "so do we all believe . . . Peter has spoken through Leo."

• More than two centuries later, at the Third Council of Constantinople (680-681), the same formula is repeated: "Peter has spoken through Agatho."

• After the lapse of still two other centuries, and shortly before the Photian schism, the profession of faith drawn up by Pope Hormisdas was accepted by the Fourth Council of Constantinople (869-870), and in this profession, it is stated that, by virtue of Christ's promise: "Thou art Peter, etc."; "the Catholic religion is preserved inviolable in the Apostolic See."

• Finally the reunion Council of Florence (1438-1445), repeating what had been substantially contained in the profession of faith of Michael Palaeologus approved by the Second Council of Lyons (1274), defined "that the holy Apostolic see and the Roman pontiff holds the primacy over the whole world; and that the Roman pontiff himself is the successor of the blessed Peter Prince of the Apostles and the true Vicar of Christ, and the head of the whole Church, and the father and teacher of all Christians, and that to him in blessed Peter the full power of feeding, ruling and governing the universal Church was given by our Lord Jesus Christ, and this is also recognized in the acts of the ecumenical council and in the sacred canons (quemadmodum etiam . . . continetur.

Thus it is clear that the Vatican Council introduced no new doctrine when it defined the infallibility of the pope, but merely re-asserted what had been implicitly admitted and acted upon from the beginning and had even been explicitly proclaimed and in equivalent terms by more than one of the early ecumenical councils. Until the Photian Schism in the East and the Gallican movement in the West there was no formal denial of papal supremacy, or of papal infallibility as an adjunct of supreme doctrinal authority, while the instances of their formal acknowledgment that have been referred to in the early centuries are but a few out of the multitude that might be quoted."


Source: New Advent (link)

This doesn’t sound like a doctrine “invented in 1870.” Rather, it is the re-asserting of a doctrine always understood to be true.

JoeT

Your eyesight must be as bad as your spiritual insight. The entire thing is in quotes and a link is provided to the website.

I note that you also have no way to refute what I actually quoted from the Pope, who is, afterall, the highest authority in your denomination.

That's because De Maria did it. And your response was classic Tj3 hogwash. You’ve made it apparent over the past few months how much you hate the Catholic Church; and how little you respect the truth. Maybe this is symptomatic of your insight problem? But, it does seem to get a bit old.

JoeT

[Fr_Chuck]

Yes, there are some who hate all things Catholic because that is what they are taught for no good reason but the catholic church teaches it, they prefer to re-write history, as noted in the above posts to fit their agenda.

And to be honest, the OP did not want to hear anti christian
(catholic) rants, they made that clear in their question, they wanted to know from the Catholic teachings a specific answer.

[Tj3]

Your eyesight must be as bad as your spiritual insight. The entire thing is in quotes and a link is provided to the website.

So you consider a summary of an interpretation denominational encyclopedia to be primary source?

Maybe you did not understand what I meant by a quote. I mean ORIGINAL quotes.

You've made it apparent over the past few months how much you hate the Catholic Church; and how little you respect the truth. Maybe this is symptomatic of your insight problem? But, it does seem to get a bit old.

Using your logic, I guess that you must hate the majority of Christians and Christian churches with the way that you attack anyone who is not Catholic and how little you respect the truth. Maybe this is symptomatic of your insight problem? But, it does seem to get a bit old.

BTW - I don't believe that you necessarily do hate - but if I use the logic that you and Chuck put forward, that would be my only conclusion. If you assume that to put forward differing views means that they only motivation if hate - then that must mean that is how you feel about those who disagree.

I, on the other hand, believe that we can exchange ideas, information, and yes, even differ on those view without making assumptions of hate or indeed any asumption of motivation, indeed even address the person. So you can choose to be bitter against anyone who dares disagree with you, but don't assume that others feel likewise.

The interesting thing is that these attacks started simply because I pointed out a known fact - the doctrine of papal infallibility was declared to be a doctrine in your denomination only very recently.

[Fr_Chuck]

Not sure why the thread did not close on my last post, but it should be now,

But my dad once told me if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck, Even the bible tells us we will know people by their works, your posts show what you are fairly easy.