The problem with Papal infallibility

Root of Jesse · Jul 28, 2015

BobRyan said:
I thought they invented this in the First Vatican Council of 1869–1870, -- so then there would be no pope in all of history before that -- who would know what words to say to make his statement "infallible".

As an example "by all the fullness of apostolical power I declare..." -- is something that a few people might imagine was their way before 1869 of indicating/hinting that a statement is infallible. Turns out - even that does not do it.

How many times do you need it to be explained? Just because a doctrine or dogma gets defined in 1869 does not mean it was not believed in its entirety until 1869. For example, the doctrine of the Trinity, which is not in the Bible, was defined at the Council of Nicaea, and further defined later, while it was taught and believed at least two hundred years before. It was defined because of Arianism, Adoptionism and Sabellianism, which taught different things about Christ's nature. Another example, the definition of the canon of Scripture at Trent, when it had been used as defined since ancient times.

Root of Jesse · Jul 28, 2015

Albion said:
Of course it does not. But, by definition, it is one.

IOW, there's a case to be made for not using patently offensive language when speaking of other churches (although the Catholics here don't seem to hesitate to call us "non-Catholics," "heretics," members of
"ecclesial communities" instead of churches, and so forth), but when they and their people demand that we use ordinary language that applies to everyone's church equally, they are asking for a special language that suggests the superiority of their denomination. That's not justifiable.

By what definition?

Root of Jesse · Jul 28, 2015

Crowns&Laurels said:
The problem with papal infallibility is that it was made up to secure the Church from the political follies of the UK in the mid-1800's. After declaring Anglicanism null and void, they set up a notion that the papacy was infallible.

That's something the Church would do, recap to the Middle Ages with all the other insane notions they made when the East was going through political follies.

It's very apparent to me that the Catholic Church has simply made a career out of taking advantage of man's weakness for a physical leader.
In this modern era, if the Church had only just now declared papal infallibility, I doubt only half the Catholics in the world would just plain accept it.

Riiiiight! They waited 300 years after Henry VIII ripped the Church out of the country, and waited for all the other stuff that happened in the monarchy, like volleyball between the royal families? Anglicanism was declared null and void when Henry VIII did what he did.

LittleLambofJesus · Jul 28, 2015

Root of Jesse said:
Riiiiight! They waited 300 years after Henry VIII ripped the Church out of the country, and waited for all the other stuff that happened in the monarchy, like volleyball between the royal families?
Anglicanism was declared null and void when Henry VIII did what he did.

Declared null and void by whom?

Root of Jesse · Jul 28, 2015

LittleLambofJesus said:
Declared null and void by whom?

By the Catholic Church. It wasn't done in the 1800's or 1900's. It was done upon Henry's excommunication by the Pope.

Crowns&Laurels · Jul 28, 2015

Root of Jesse said:
By the Catholic Church. It wasn't done in the 1800's or 1900's. It was done upon Henry's excommunication by the Pope.

It was done twice then. The papal bull of 1850 nulled Anglican bishops.

Root of Jesse · Jul 28, 2015

Crowns&Laurels said:
It was done twice then. The papal bull of 1850 nulled Anglican bishops.

And Henry basically made himself a pope. Such papal bulls are just an act of masquerading being in control, why even bother seriously.
This is an exact working of how unlike virtually any other sect of Christianity on Earth, the papacy is either an object of danger or futility.

Well, now that you explained yourself, all that did was to claim loss of apostolic succession. "Virtually any other sect"? There's Catholic, and then the others, pretty much.

Crowns&Laurels · Jul 28, 2015

Root of Jesse said:
Well, now that you explained yourself, all that did was to claim loss of apostolic succession. "Virtually any other sect"? There's Catholic, and then the others, pretty much.

I'm worn out today. I was going somewhere with my last post and then just stopped and hit 'post reply' supposing, well, whatever I guess.

It takes an apostolic succession to authorize Catholic orders. It's really just splitting hairs.

BobRyan · Jul 28, 2015

Root of Jesse said:
How many times do you need it to be explained? Just because a doctrine or dogma gets defined in 1869 does not mean it was not believed in its entirety until 1869.

So then they "believed" what they never stated? Never wrote?

For example, the doctrine of the Trinity, which is not in the Bible, was defined at the Council of Nicaea, and further defined later, while it was taught and believed at least two hundred years before.

How many times do you need it to be explained that we don't ever appeal to the council of Nicaea to prove/support/affirm the doctrine of the Trinity as believed by the Bible writers, because the information is in the Bible without a single reference at all to Nicaea -- As far as I know only Catholics need to do that.

By contrast we find no such thing from the Bible writers about the Popes and the Catholic ecumenical councils being infallible. IT is a pretty big contrast.

in Christ,

Bob

BobRyan · Jul 28, 2015

Crowns&Laurels said:
It takes an apostolic succession to authorize Catholic orders. It's really just splitting hairs.

Where does the Bible say that?

BobRyan · Jul 28, 2015

BobRyan said:
I thought they invented this in the First Vatican Council of 1869–1870, -- so then there would be no pope in all of history before that -- who would know what words to say to make his statement "infallible".

As an example "by all the fullness of apostolical power I declare..." -- is something that a few people might imagine was their way before 1869 of indicating/hinting that a statement is infallible. Turns out - even that does not do it.

If something not at all found in the Bible was not "invented" in 1869 then the case for that needs to be made by someone.

If "by all the fullness of apostolical power - I DECLARE..." is not an example of someone using that language before the 1869 (Which all Catholics seem to insist that it is NOT an infallible statement ex cathedra) then... what is?

Root of Jesse · Jul 28, 2015

BobRyan said:
So then they "believed" what they never stated? Never wrote?

How many times do you need it to be explained that we don't ever appeal to the council of Nicaea to prove/support/affirm the doctrine of the Trinity as believed by the Bible writers, because the information is in the Bible without a single reference at all to Nicaea -- As far as I know only Catholics need to do that.

By contrast we find no such thing from the Bible writers about the Popes and the Catholic ecumenical councils being infallible. IT is a pretty big contrast.

in Christ,

Bob

The Bible writers didn't believe in the Trinity. There were statements, though, in the Bible that supported the Trinity, popes and infallibility.

Root of Jesse · Jul 28, 2015

BobRyan said:
If something not at all found in the Bible was not "invented" in 1869 then the case for that needs to be made by someone.

If "by all the fullness of apostolical power - I DECLARE..." is not an example of someone using that language before the 1869 (Which all Catholics seem to insist that it is NOT an infallible statement ex cathedra) then... what is?

Depends on what comes after that.

BobRyan · Jul 28, 2015

Root of Jesse said:
The Bible writers didn't believe in the Trinity. There were statements, though, in the Bible that supported the Trinity, popes and infallibility.

I believe it is true that they did not believe in Papal infallibility - but how can you be certain that they did not believe in "One God in THREE persons"?? (Given the statements they make in affirmation of it??)

BobRyan · Jul 28, 2015

Root of Jesse said:
Depends on what comes after that.

I think we explored the problems with Papal infallibility here - as it relates to Popes speaking and declaring their statements to be established for the church - "by all the fullness of Apostolical power" Jan 26, 2015 #285

Root of Jesse · Jul 29, 2015

BobRyan said:
I believe it is true that they did not believe in Papal infallibility - but how can you be certain that they did not believe in "One God in THREE persons"?? (Given the statements they make in affirmation of it??)

Where does it say they believed in one God in three persons? And if that was so strong a belief, why were there so many interpretations about the nature of Jesus Christ, and God Himself?

Root of Jesse · Jul 29, 2015

BobRyan said:
I think we explored the problems with Papal infallibility here - as it relates to Popes speaking and declaring their statements to be established for the church - "by all the fullness of Apostolical power" Jan 26, 2015 #285

The pope, in his latest encyclical, makes statements that he believes Global Warming is a human problem. Do you think he was writing infallibly? I don't. Therefore, I know that every statement that comes out of every pope's mouth is not infallible. So now we need to determine when it is infallible.

LittleLambofJesus · Jul 29, 2015

Root of Jesse said:
The pope, in his latest encyclical, makes statements that he believes Global Warming is a human problem. Do you think he was writing infallibly? I don't. Therefore, I know that every statement that comes out of every pope's mouth is not infallible. So now we need to determine when it is infallible.

How is that determined?

Root of Jesse · Jul 29, 2015

LittleLambofJesus said:
How is that determined?

When the Church determines it, it is. Basically, they do a replay review of what the Church has taught and believed since the beginning. If it agrees with what the Pope says, it's infallible. If it doesn't, then it's not. Infallibility only involves matters of faith and morals.

Berean777 · Jul 29, 2015

The problem with Papal infallibility

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Well-Known Member

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Well-Known Member

Junior Member

Junior Member

Junior Member

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Junior Member

Junior Member

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Servant of Christ Jesus. Stellar Son.

Similar threads