Announcement

Collapse

Ecclesiology 201 Guidelines

Discussion on matters of general mainstream Christian churches. What are the differences between Catholics and protestants? How has the charismatic movement affected the church? Are Southern baptists different from fundamentalist baptists? It is also for discussions about the nature of the church.

This forum is primarily for Christians to discuss matters of Christian doctrine, and is not the area for debate between atheists (or those opposing orthodox Christianity) and theists. Inquiring atheists (or sincere seekers/doubters/unorthodox) seeking only Christian participation and having demonstrated a manner that does not seek to undermine the orthodox Christian faith of others are also welcome, but must seek Moderator permission first. When defining “Christian” for purposes of this section, we mean persons holding to the core essentials of the historic Christian faith such as the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment. Persons not holding to these core doctrines are welcome to participate in the Comparative Religions section without restriction, in Theology 201 as regards to the nature of God and salvation with limited restrictions, and in Christology for issues surrounding the person of Christ and the Trinity. Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions. Additionally, there may be some topics that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream orthodox doctrine that may be more appropriately placed within Comparative Religions 101.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Questions About Papal Infallibility

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Questions About Papal Infallibility

    Not interested in a debate - just looking for information.

    Play nice!


    Okay, my understanding is that the formal doctrine of papal infallibility is a relative late comer and that it concerns matters of doctrine only (the pope's doctrine is infallible but his church history can be way off). I have the following questions about it:
    1) Is it retroactive?
    2) If so, what about times when there were more than one claimant to the papacy?
    3) If not, why not? Why are only modern popes infallible?
    4) Where does it come from officially (what document or documents)?

    Thank you!
    "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

    "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

    My Personal Blog

    My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

    Quill Sword

  • #2

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
      1) Is it retroactive?
      Yes.

      2) If so, what about times when there were more than one claimant to the papacy?
      One was real the other were fakes.

      4) Where does it come from officially (what document or documents)?
      1st Vatican Council.

      Source: Decrees of the First Vatican Council

      we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that
      when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,
      that is, when,
      in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
      in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
      he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,
      he possesses,
      by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,
      that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
      Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.

      © Copyright Original Source



      As stated, its only when a pope speaks ex cathedra that his utterances are considered infallible (read - irreformable), and binding on all believers as a matter of faith. This has happened only two times in history though.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
        Yes.



        One was real the other were fakes.



        1st Vatican Council.

        Source: Decrees of the First Vatican Council

        we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that
        when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,
        that is, when,
        in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
        in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
        he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,
        he possesses,
        by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,
        that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
        Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.

        © Copyright Original Source

        Thanks!

        As stated, its only when a pope speaks ex cathedra that his utterances are considered infallible (read - irreformable), and binding on all believers as a matter of faith. This has happened only two times in history though.
        Um, wait, what? The pope has only spoken in the exercise of his office twice in history? Or does ex catherdra have another meaning?
        "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

        "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

        My Personal Blog

        My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

        Quill Sword

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
          Thanks!


          Um, wait, what? The pope has only spoken in the exercise of his office twice in history? Or does ex catherdra have another meaning?
          It's not whenever the pope speaks. He first has to speak about faith/morals (e.g. the pope can't be infallible concerning science). Second, he cannot be outright contradicting already defined infallible Catholic doctrine (e.g. he cannot suddenly decide to switch the official Catholic doctrine on the Incarnation to Arianism). He has to be speaking from the chair, invoking his place as Peter's successor. It's actually an absurdly narrow doctrine and Catholics are divided on how many time it has actually been used. There are various lists that run around of which statements were infallibly given. The most common I have seen are six or seven though I think I've seen at least one person who believed it was in the double digits (fifteen, maybe? but I could be remembering wrong). Some, like Leon above, will cite fewer.

          Papal encyclicals are generally not considered speaking in the pope's infallible capacity. Tbh, I think modern popes avoid trying to invoke papal infallibility for most things they say, unless they're citing one of the widely accepted infallible doctrines.

          Grain of salt: I go to an Orthodox church; I am not Catholic.

          "Fire is catching. If we burn, you burn with us!"
          "I'm not going anywhere. I'm going to stay here and cause all kinds of trouble."
          Katniss Everdeen


          Christ our Passover has been sacrificed for us. Therefore let us keep the feast.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
            One was real the other were fakes.
            What bugs me about this is the general post facto nature of these sorts of declarations, by the winning side. I'm also uncomfortable with the idea of "anti-popes" which is essentially a whitewash of the papal list.
            Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

            Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
            sigpic
            I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
              What bugs me about this is the general post facto nature of these sorts of declarations, by the winning side. I'm also uncomfortable with the idea of "anti-popes" which is essentially a whitewash of the papal list.
              I have a great sympathy for what you're saying, but its quite beyond me to argue either way. In the end a similar situation is had with regards to what we now consider to be heresies of Christianity, with what believe to be true to the be true faith. The history of the church is long and messy.

              I'm just living in it and hoping and praying for salvation.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by thewriteranon View Post
                It's not whenever the pope speaks. He first has to speak about faith/morals (e.g. the pope can't be infallible concerning science). Second, he cannot be outright contradicting already defined infallible Catholic doctrine (e.g. he cannot suddenly decide to switch the official Catholic doctrine on the Incarnation to Arianism). He has to be speaking from the chair, invoking his place as Peter's successor. It's actually an absurdly narrow doctrine and Catholics are divided on how many time it has actually been used. There are various lists that run around of which statements were infallibly given. The most common I have seen are six or seven though I think I've seen at least one person who believed it was in the double digits (fifteen, maybe? but I could be remembering wrong). Some, like Leon above, will cite fewer.

                Papal encyclicals are generally not considered speaking in the pope's infallible capacity. Tbh, I think modern popes avoid trying to invoke papal infallibility for most things they say, unless they're citing one of the widely accepted infallible doctrines.

                Grain of salt: I go to an Orthodox church; I am not Catholic.
                Okay, I think I get it.
                "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

                "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                My Personal Blog

                My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                Quill Sword

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by thewriteranon View Post
                  It's not whenever the pope speaks. He first has to speak about faith/morals (e.g. the pope can't be infallible concerning science). Second, he cannot be outright contradicting already defined infallible Catholic doctrine (e.g. he cannot suddenly decide to switch the official Catholic doctrine on the Incarnation to Arianism). He has to be speaking from the chair, invoking his place as Peter's successor. It's actually an absurdly narrow doctrine and Catholics are divided on how many time it has actually been used. There are various lists that run around of which statements were infallibly given. The most common I have seen are six or seven though I think I've seen at least one person who believed it was in the double digits (fifteen, maybe? but I could be remembering wrong). Some, like Leon above, will cite fewer.
                  My understanding is that there are two cases where it was definitely ex cathedra (and were cited as such by the Catholic church itself), but then there were some other statements given before those two that people have argued also fall under ex cathedra, but the Catholic church itself hasn't officially confirmed as being as such.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I find hilarious the people who claim that the Catholic Church is infallible, yet also claim that all the popes since Vatican II were fake popes and that the papacy is empty. The whole premise of Roman Catholicism is supposed to be that the Roman church is infallible.
                    Last edited by Obsidian; 01-02-2018, 01:53 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                      […] The history of the church is long and messy.
                      For Neo-Remonstration (Arminian/Remonstrant ruminations): <https://theremonstrant.blogspot.com>

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                        Yes.



                        One was real the other were fakes.



                        1st Vatican Council.

                        Source: Decrees of the First Vatican Council

                        we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that
                        when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,
                        that is, when,
                        in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
                        in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
                        he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,
                        he possesses,
                        by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,
                        that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
                        Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.

                        © Copyright Original Source



                        As stated, its only when a pope speaks ex cathedra that his utterances are considered infallible (read - irreformable), and binding on all believers as a matter of faith. This has happened only two times in history though.
                        I am not sure that the word "retroactive" is accurate, it implies that the doctrine is applied to previous cases where it did not exist. Catholics hold that the popes have had the same function throughout history.

                        I have a question for the Protestants: if someone asks how to get to heaven, would you consider your answer to be fallible or infallible? I ask because usually this discussion revolves around what things are infallible and what fallible/infallible actually means, as well as the source of any infallibility.

                        And another question, when was the trinity actually defined? How do we date the "invention" of the trinity?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                          What bugs me about this is the general post facto nature of these sorts of declarations, by the winning side. I'm also uncomfortable with the idea of "anti-popes" which is essentially a whitewash of the papal list.
                          The winning side got to write the Athanasian Creed, the Arians didn't get their formulation accepted. The winning side rejected the gnostic writings in the early centuries. The winning side condemned the heresies of Arianism, Monothelites, Monophysites, Nestorians, Pelagians.

                          Would you prefer that the losing side gets to define Christianity?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Was there some part of 'not debating' that you didn't get?

                            Anyway, I got what I needed. Thanks everyone - y'all can take it from here.
                            "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

                            "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                            My Personal Blog

                            My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                            Quill Sword

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              apologies.

                              Comment

                              widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                              Working...
                              X