The problem with Papal infallibility

[BobRyan]

. But clue me in, what was 'the case' of Clement?

I link to it here

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[/QUOTE

It ends like this -
========================================
we do, out of our certain knowledge, and the fulness of our apostolical power...(command goes here),

...
" Further, we do ordain, that after the publication of this our letter, no person do presume to suspend the execution thereof, under colour, title, or pretence of any action, appeal, relief, explanation of doubts which may arise, or any other pretext whatever, foreseen or not foreseen. ...

...

For all this notwithstanding, our will and pleasure is, that these our letters should for ever and to all eternity be valid, permanent, and efficacious, have and obtain their full force and effect, and be inviolably observed by all and every whom they do or may concern, now or hereafter, in any manner whatever.

" In like manner, and not otherwise, we ordain that all the matters here above specified, and every of them, shall be carried into execution by the ordinary judge and delegate; whether by the auditor, cardinal, legate a latere, nuncio, or any other person who has, or ought to have, authority or jurisdiction in any matter or suits, taking from all and every of them all power of interpreting these our letters. And this to be executed, notwithstanding all constitutions, privileges, apostolic commands, &c. &c. &c. ...

"Lastly, our will and pleasure is, that to all copies of the present Brief, signed by a notary public, and sealed by some dignitary of the Church, the same force and credit shall be given as to this original. Given at Rome, at St Mary the Greater, under the seal of the Fisherman, the
21st day of July 1773, in the fifth year
of our Pontificate."
==================================

The point is that none of that language is deemed today to constitue "ex cathedra" infallible Papal declaration - by Catholics on this board.

So then in the mid 1800's they do come up with something - but in the late 1700's even such a statement as we find above -- is "insufficient" and can simply be overturned and entirely ignored.

If that is how even Catholics treat such statements by the Popes - how much more would non-Catholics view Papal statements as being at times flawed if not entirely incorrect or in some way deficient ??

 

[Root of Jesse]

The RCC calls it "communion WITH the dead" -- and the "dead" in this case is "those who have died" -- and those prayed TO in that same case are "those who have died - but have made it to heaven rather than still being in purgatory" --

So then - Isaiah 8:19 still "exists" even if such practices as described above also exist.

Communion with the dead is not praying to them, Bob. And those we pray TO, while they have died, are ALIVE IN HEAVEN, so we do not pray to the dead. We pray FOR the dead in purgatory.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Communion with the dead is not praying to them, Bob. And those we pray TO, while they have died, are ALIVE IN HEAVEN, so we do not pray to the dead. We pray FOR the dead in purgatory.

How can they be in heaven if the resurrection hasn't happened yet?
Just wondering?

Reve 20:5
The rest of the dead-ones not live until should be being finished the thousand years.
This is the first Resurrection/ana-stasiV <386>.

 

[Root of Jesse]

I link to it here


It ends like this -
========================================
we do, out of our certain knowledge, and the fulness of our apostolical power...(command goes here),

...
" Further, we do ordain, that after the publication of this our letter, no person do presume to suspend the execution thereof, under colour, title, or pretence of any action, appeal, relief, explanation of doubts which may arise, or any other pretext whatever, foreseen or not foreseen. ...

...

For all this notwithstanding, our will and pleasure is, that these our letters should for ever and to all eternity be valid, permanent, and efficacious, have and obtain their full force and effect, and be inviolably observed by all and every whom they do or may concern, now or hereafter, in any manner whatever.

" In like manner, and not otherwise, we ordain that all the matters here above specified, and every of them, shall be carried into execution by the ordinary judge and delegate; whether by the auditor, cardinal, legate a latere, nuncio, or any other person who has, or ought to have, authority or jurisdiction in any matter or suits, taking from all and every of them all power of interpreting these our letters. And this to be executed, notwithstanding all constitutions, privileges, apostolic commands, &c. &c. &c. ...

"Lastly, our will and pleasure is, that to all copies of the present Brief, signed by a notary public, and sealed by some dignitary of the Church, the same force and credit shall be given as to this original. Given at Rome, at St Mary the Greater, under the seal of the Fisherman, the
21st day of July 1773, in the fifth year
of our Pontificate."
==================================

The point is that none of that language is deemed today to constitue "ex cathedra" infallible Papal declaration - by Catholics on this board.

So then in the mid 1800's they do come up with something - but in the late 1700's even such a statement as we find above -- is "insufficient" and can simply be overturned and entirely ignored.

If that is how even Catholics treat such statements by the Popes - how much more would non-Catholics view Papal statements as being at times flawed if not entirely incorrect or in some way deficient ??

Secondly, Catholics on this board do not get to determine whether something is "ex cathedra". Can you name the documents you quote, so I can see what they refer to? Without attribution, they say very much nothing. Also, just because something is said to be not 'ex cathedra' doesn't mean it's not true, does not mean it can be overturned, and does not mean it's not valid. For example, the Catholic ban on birth control was never, I don't think, an ex cathedra statement, but it is just as much law as the virginity of Mary.

 

[Root of Jesse]

How can they be in heaven if the resurrection hasn't happened yet?
Just wondering?

Reve 20:5
The rest of the dead-ones not live until should be being finished the thousand years.
This is the first Resurrection/ana-stasiV <386>.

Except earlier in Revelation, the prayers of the faithful rise to the saints in heaven around the throne of God. Also, we know that Moses, Elijah, Mary and Jesus are bodily in heaven.
The resurrection of the body is what comes later.

 

[Root of Jesse]

I link to it here


It ends like this -
========================================
we do, out of our certain knowledge, and the fulness of our apostolical power...(command goes here),

...
" Further, we do ordain, that after the publication of this our letter, no person do presume to suspend the execution thereof, under colour, title, or pretence of any action, appeal, relief, explanation of doubts which may arise, or any other pretext whatever, foreseen or not foreseen. ...

...

For all this notwithstanding, our will and pleasure is, that these our letters should for ever and to all eternity be valid, permanent, and efficacious, have and obtain their full force and effect, and be inviolably observed by all and every whom they do or may concern, now or hereafter, in any manner whatever.

" In like manner, and not otherwise, we ordain that all the matters here above specified, and every of them, shall be carried into execution by the ordinary judge and delegate; whether by the auditor, cardinal, legate a latere, nuncio, or any other person who has, or ought to have, authority or jurisdiction in any matter or suits, taking from all and every of them all power of interpreting these our letters. And this to be executed, notwithstanding all constitutions, privileges, apostolic commands, &c. &c. &c. ...

"Lastly, our will and pleasure is, that to all copies of the present Brief, signed by a notary public, and sealed by some dignitary of the Church, the same force and credit shall be given as to this original. Given at Rome, at St Mary the Greater, under the seal of the Fisherman, the
21st day of July 1773, in the fifth year
of our Pontificate."
==================================

The point is that none of that language is deemed today to constitue "ex cathedra" infallible Papal declaration - by Catholics on this board.

So then in the mid 1800's they do come up with something - but in the late 1700's even such a statement as we find above -- is "insufficient" and can simply be overturned and entirely ignored.

If that is how even Catholics treat such statements by the Popes - how much more would non-Catholics view Papal statements as being at times flawed if not entirely incorrect or in some way deficient ??

OK, you're referring to Pope Clement XIV closing the Jesuit order. Well, Popes can only speak infallibly when speaking of faith and morals to the entire Church. The Jesuit order is not the entire Church, and the Pope was given faulty information about the Jesuit order. Therefore, it's ok for the Church to reinstate the order. A Pope also was given faulty information about Padre Pio, whom the Pope had barred from performing priestly duties, but when the truth came to light, it was reversed.

 

[Berean777]

How can they be in heaven if the resurrection hasn't happened yet?
Just wondering?

Reve 20:5
The rest of the dead-ones not live until should be being finished the thousand years.
This is the first Resurrection/ana-stasiV <386>.

I'm wondering if they have adopted the Preterist definition of the resurrection for this Catholic doctrine. Maybe they are hinting at those being alive even though they are dead from this world. It almost is a form of mysticism. Praying to the dead is not praying to the dead if you redefine death like the Preterists do.

 

[Root of Jesse]

I'm wondering if they have adopted the Preterist definition of the resurrection for this Catholic doctrine. Maybe they are hinting at those being alive even though they are dead from this world. It almost is a form of mysticism. Praying to the dead is not praying to the dead if you redefine death like the Preterists do.

"They" didn't redefine anything. The Reformationists did. Revelation 5. Where are they? In heaven. There are 'living creatures' there. The 24 elders are living in heaven.

 

[Berean777]

"They" didn't redefine anything. The Reformationists did. Revelation 5. Where are they? In heaven. There are 'living creatures' there. The 24 elders are living in heaven.

In your words as succinctly as you can define the following terms please:

Please define death.
Please define living.
Please define heaven.
Please define creatures.
Please define elders.
Please define resurrection.

I don't know what you are thinking, so that I can respond in context. Thank you kindly.

 

[BobRyan]

"They" didn't redefine anything. The Reformationists did. Revelation 5. Where are they? In heaven. There are 'living creatures' there. The 24 elders are living in heaven.

Are you suggesting that all those beings in heaven - are dead? Have died? If you claim they died - do you also claim they are not resurrected?

How do you get all of that from Rev 5? The Lamb of God - "standing as if slain" certainly died - and was resurrected.

Are you suggesting that the other beings are all human? are all dead? have died but are not yet resurrected?

 

[BobRyan]

QUOTE="BobRyan, post: 68387763, member: 235244"]I link to it here


It ends like this -
========================================
we do, out of our certain knowledge, and the fulness of our apostolical power...(command goes here),

...
" Further, we do ordain, that after the publication of this our letter, no person do presume to suspend the execution thereof, under colour, title, or pretence of any action, appeal, relief, explanation of doubts which may arise, or any other pretext whatever, foreseen or not foreseen. ...

...

For all this notwithstanding, our will and pleasure is, that these our letters should for ever and to all eternity be valid, permanent, and efficacious, have and obtain their full force and effect, and be inviolably observed by all and every whom they do or may concern, now or hereafter, in any manner whatever.

" In like manner, and not otherwise, we ordain that all the matters here above specified, and every of them, shall be carried into execution by the ordinary judge and delegate; whether by the auditor, cardinal, legate a latere, nuncio, or any other person who has, or ought to have, authority or jurisdiction in any matter or suits, taking from all and every of them all power of interpreting these our letters. And this to be executed, notwithstanding all constitutions, privileges, apostolic commands, &c. &c. &c. ...

"Lastly, our will and pleasure is, that to all copies of the present Brief, signed by a notary public, and sealed by some dignitary of the Church, the same force and credit shall be given as to this original. Given at Rome, at St Mary the Greater, under the seal of the Fisherman, the
21st day of July 1773, in the fifth year
of our Pontificate."
==================================

The point is that none of that language is deemed today to constitue "ex cathedra" infallible Papal declaration - by Catholics on this board.

So then in the mid 1800's they do come up with something - but in the late 1700's even such a statement as we find above -- is "insufficient" and can simply be overturned and entirely ignored.

If that is how even Catholics treat such statements by the Popes - how much more would non-Catholics view Papal statements as being at times flawed if not entirely incorrect or in some way deficient ??[/QUOTE]

OK, you're referring to Pope Clement XIV closing the Jesuit order. Well, Popes can only speak infallibly when speaking of faith and morals to the entire Church.

ok so then --- the entire church


" Further, we do ordain, that after the publication of this our letter, no person do presume to suspend the execution thereof, under colour, title, or pretence of any action, appeal, relief, explanation of doubts which may arise, or any other pretext whatever, foreseen or not foreseen. Our will and meaning is, that the suppression and destruction of the said Society, and of all its parts, shall have an immediate and instantaneous effect in the manner here above set forth; and that under pain of the greater excommunication, to be immediately incurred by whosoever shall presume to create the least impediment or obstacle, or delay in the execution of this our will: the said excommunication not to be taken off but by ourselves, or our successors, the Roman Pontiffs.

"Further, we ordain and command, by virtue of the holy obedience to all and every ecclesiastical person, regular and secular, of whatever rank, dignity, and condition, and especially those who have been heretofore of the said Company, that no one of them do carry their audacity so far as to impugn, combat, or even write or speak about the said suppression, or the reasons and motives of it, or about the institute of the Company, its form of government, or other circumstance thereto relating, without an express permission from the Roman Pontiff, and that under the same pain of excommunication.

==========================================
Now since the "details" as you point out limit infallibility to not this case - I wonder if the fact that Clement was speaking before that doctrine was created left him at a bit of a disadvantage - not knowing he could not say such things about this or that Catholic order as if it would be taken by Catholics as valid.

 

[Root of Jesse]

In your words as succinctly as you can define the following terms please:

Please define death.
Please define living.
Please define heaven.
Please define creatures.
Please define elders.
Please define resurrection.

I don't know what you are thinking, so that I can respond in context. Thank you kindly.

Death, when the body or the soul dies. Just because the body dies, doesn't mean the soul dies.
Living, when the body or soul is alive.
Heaven, state of communion with God
Creatures, those created by God, some spirit only, some bodily.
Elders, those, usually older than us, who lead us.
Resurrection of the soul, after you die, after your judgement, being in a state of communion with God; bodily resurrection, what happens in the end times, our bodies are reunited with our souls.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Are you suggesting that all those beings in heaven - are dead? Have died? If you claim they died - do you also claim they are not resurrected?

Gosh, Bob, where did I say anything to suggest that all those in heaven died? Angels certainly have not died.

How do you get all of that from Rev 5? The Lamb of God - "standing as if slain" certainly died - and was resurrected.

There's a difference between bodily resurrection and the resurrection of the soul. Saints are, right now, souls in heaven. They will be reunited with their bodies after Christ returns.

Are you suggesting that the other beings are all human? are all dead? have died but are not yet resurrected?

Nope. But those referred to, the four living creatures and the elders, are distinguished from the angels, no?

 

[Berean777]

Death, when the body or the soul dies. Just because the body dies, doesn't mean the soul dies.
Living, when the body or soul is alive.
Heaven, state of communion with God
Creatures, those created by God, some spirit only, some bodily.
Elders, those, usually older than us, who lead us.
Resurrection of the soul, after you die, after your judgement, being in a state of communion with God; bodily resurrection, what happens in the end times, our bodies are reunited with our souls.

Thank you

My definition of death and life is different to your definition. Maybe look at what Jesus said. There are many living bodily that are dead spiritually, therefore this person before the Lord is already dead, regardless whether the body or the soul inside that body is alive as a biomechanical life form.

In this respect I see that whether in this earthly body or the heavenly body we are alive in Christ. This means that to a true Christian there is no death, but only a migration from the mortal life to the eternal life with Christ. Is there a sleep state or waiting period for a departed person in Christ?

No!

 

[Root of Jesse]

Thank you

My definition of death and life is different to your definition. Maybe look at what Jesus said. There are many living bodily that are dead spiritually, therefore this person before the Lord is already dead, regardless whether the body or the soul inside that body is alive as a biomechanical life form.

Where did I say that there aren't physically alive/spiritually dead? But those can still be saved, no?

In this respect I see that whether in this earthly body or the heavenly body we are alive in Christ. This means that to a true Christian there is no death, but only a migration from the mortal life to the eternal life with Christ. Is there a sleep state or waiting period for a departed person in Christ?

No!

Not a sleep state, but there is a 'time' of purging for those sins we carry after we die. The just man sins many times a day, yet we know that there are saints in heaven. Those 'little' sins need to be paid for before we enter heaven. God is merciful, purgatory is proof of that mercy.

 

[Berean777]

Where did I say that there aren't physically alive/spiritually dead? But those can still be saved, no?
Not a sleep state, but there is a 'time' of purging for those sins we carry after we die. The just man sins many times a day, yet we know that there are saints in heaven. Those 'little' sins need to be paid for before we enter heaven. God is merciful, purgatory is proof of that mercy.

The first founded Christian church by Saint Thomas in 34 AD has in its liturgy that the faithful physically dead in Christ migrate from the life in the mortal body to life eternal to be with the risen Lord. I believe that the concept of purgatory was not what the church at Babylon taught, as the elected church mentioned in Peter's epistles. This doctrine cropped up sometime later in the third century.

It is believed that there is the assumption that a person is not fully cleansed in this life which would be in vast contrast to many of Jesus's statements of telling the believers to be vigilant in faith even onto death and I will give them a crown of righteousness. Also Paul writes.....

The time of my departure is at hand and there is in store for me the crown of righteousness that the righteous Lord will award me but not to me only, but also those who are departing to behold the Lord's appearing.

Context of Lord's appearing is death, the thief that destroys the earthly house on a day and hour that we least expect it when we are suddenly taken from this mortal life.

Purgatory is not what the church at Babylon taught and this church is the same church that the Church of Rome labelled heretical in the council of Ephesus in 431AD.

From scripture Peter elects this church, the Assyrian church of the East which according to Isaiah 19:23-25 is the handy work of God and the blessings that the 1st century Jewish church would require so that their Jewish people can come as the third. This is the only formulae to receive the blessings from God and the only highway.

1 Peter 5:12-14
12By Silvanus, a faithful brother unto you, as I suppose, I have written briefly, exhorting, and testifying that this is the true grace of God wherein ye stand. 13The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son. 14Greet ye one another with a kiss of charity. Peace be with you all that are in Christ Jesus. Amen.

We have to comply to this church's teaching found in its liturgy and not a doctrine that came up 300 years later. Please don't take offence at what I say because it is the truth in this matter. This church has the election and blessings as the successor of Peter according to God he considers it his handy work, so who would argue with that.

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

How can they be in heaven if the resurrection hasn't happened yet?

If the soul separates from the body in moments of sin, as St. Augustine taught, then a soul can most certainly be in Heaven upon death of the body.

 

[Root of Jesse]

The first founded Christian church by Saint Thomas in 34 AD has in its liturgy that the faithful physically dead in Christ migrate from the life in the mortal body to life eternal to be with the risen Lord. I believe that the concept of purgatory was not what the church at Babylon taught, as the elected church mentioned in Peter's epistles. This doctrine cropped up sometime later in the third century.

What church at Babylon? Babylon was a ruins at the time of Christ.

It is believed that there is the assumption that a person is not fully cleansed in this life which would be in vast contrast to many of Jesus's statements of telling the believers to be vigilant in faith even onto death and I will give them a crown of righteousness. Also Paul writes.....

The time of my departure is at hand and there is in store for me the crown of righteousness that the righteous Lord will award me but not to me only, but also those who are departing to behold the Lord's appearing.

Context of Lord's appearing is death, the thief that destroys the earthly house on a day and hour that we least expect it when we are suddenly taken from this mortal life.

Purgatory is not what the church at Babylon taught and this church is the same church that the Church of Rome labelled heretical in the council of Ephesus in 431AD.

From scripture Peter elects this church, the Assyrian church of the East which according to Isaiah 19:23-25 is the handy work of God and the blessings that the 1st century Jewish church would require so that their Jewish people can come as the third. This is the only formulae to receive the blessings from God and the only highway.



We have to comply to this church's teaching found in its liturgy and not a doctrine that came up 300 years later. Please don't take offence at what I say because it is the truth in this matter. This church has the election and blessings as the successor of Peter according to God he considers it his handy work, so who would argue with that.

You can be as vigilant in faith as you want, you will still sin. God is merciful, and just. He allows us a state of purification so that we may enter heaven without stain of sin.

There was no church at Babylon.

 

[Berean777]

What church at Babylon? Babylon was a ruins at the time of Christ.

You can be as vigilant in faith as you want, you will still sin. God is merciful, and just. He allows us a state of purification so that we may enter heaven without stain of sin.

There was no church at Babylon.

Since your denomination came later you are entitled to your prerogative and I am not forcing truth upon you, simply stating facts that the church at Babylon mentioned by Peter points to the Christians based in the northern province of what is today Kurdistan or previously Iraq.

I thing you are deflecting that greater issue at heart and that is Peter and the Jewish apostles preached to their Semitic counterparts as with a mission to establish the highway of God mentioned in Isaiah 19:23-25 and in so doing to save their people and to receive the blessings, they would firstly preach to the Assyrian church of the East before even contemplating to preach to the gentile nations of the world which Rome represented (Acts 10).

In this circumstance Peter gave his election to this church who later ordained a Roman clergy member as bishop who then went on to become pope and head figure of the Catholic Church today. The succession of Peter is this church if you believe in Peter's succession.

Out of small things comes the great workings of God.

God declares Assyrians my handy work, then again through the Son who says the Men of Nineveh shall rise up to condemn this generation because they are the first to have believed in Christ the Living Word (the sign of Jonah).

 

[Root of Jesse]

Since your denomination came later you are entitled to your prerogative and I am not forcing truth upon you, simply stating facts that the church at Babylon mentioned by Peter points to the Christians based in the northern province of what is today Kurdistan or previously Iraq.

Boy! Talk about rewriting history! First, the Catholic Church, instituted by Christ on the Rock, St. Peter, cannot be 'later', by definition, nor is it a denomination, which would be anti-Biblical. Tradition tells us that "Babylon" is Rome. Why? Because, if Peter's letter was intercepted, he'd be a target of Roman authorities. Besides which, Babylon was under Persian rule, and was not the thriving empire it was prior to 500 BC, thanks to Alexander the Great.

I thing you are deflecting that greater issue at heart and that is Peter and the Jewish apostles preached to their Semitic counterparts as with a mission to establish the highway of God mentioned in Isaiah 19:23-25 and in so doing to save their people and to receive the blessings, they would firstly preach to the Assyrian church of the East before even contemplating to preach to the gentile nations of the world which Rome represented (Acts 10).

They preached to Judea, Samaria, and northward. Some apostles spread eastward, others westward, others to the northern edge of Africa. Rome became central because it was central. As for the Jews, the fruit there was limited, because they were hard of heart, spent the next 40 years mocking the Christians. That's why, when Jerusalem was destroyed, all the Christians were out of Jerusalem.

In this circumstance Peter gave his election to this church who later ordained a Roman clergy member as bishop who then went on to become pope and head figure of the Catholic Church today. The succession of Peter is this church if you believe in Peter's succession.

Sorry, cannot find any evidence of your rewritten history.

Out of small things comes the great workings of God.

God declares Assyrians my handy work, then again through the Son who says the Men of Nineveh shall rise up to condemn this generation because they are the first to have believed in Christ the Living Word (the sign of Jonah).