Infallibility

[WarriorAngel]

Keep it here....

Will be back to put more input here.

 

[xristos.anesti]

Here we go again.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Here we go again.

You are bringing it up in every thread...
So I wanted to put in one place.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm link


It is well further to explain:

• that infallibility means more than exemption from actual error; it means exemption from the possibility of error;
• that it does not require holiness of life, much less imply impeccability in its organs; sinful and wicked men may be God's agents in defining infallibly;
• and finally that the validity of the Divine guarantee is independent of the fallible arguments upon which a definitive decision may be based, and of the possibly unworthy human motives that in cases of strife may appear to have influenced the result. It is the definitive result itself, and it alone, that is guaranteed to be infallible, not the preliminary stages by which it is reached.

 

[xristos.anesti]

You are bringing it up in every thread...
So I wanted to put in one place.

link


It is well further to explain:

• that infallibility means more than exemption from actual error; it means exemption from the possibility of error;
• that it does not require holiness of life, much less imply impeccability in its organs; sinful and wicked men may be God's agents in defining infallibly;
• and finally that the validity of the Divine guarantee is independent of the fallible arguments upon which a definitive decision may be based, and of the possibly unworthy human motives that in cases of strife may appear to have influenced the result. It is the definitive result itself, and it alone, that is guaranteed to be infallible, not the preliminary stages by which it is reached.

Aha, so it is my fault that you are writing about these things?!

Why don't you say it as it is WA -

YOU bring it up in every thread - for every thread YOU start - speaks of Pope and His power and prerogatives of the same - I am merely defending the position of all those of us who disagree with what you keep posting here and to whom this forum ALSO belongs to.

Anyway - regardless of what you say infallibility means - it just is not a parameter of the Apostolic faith.

If St. Peter was infallible all-ruling monarch and the bishops that trace the line from him are the same - then Antioch should be the same as the Rome if not higher, for St. Peter was there first..

There is not a single canon of the ecumenical councils that teaches the infallibility of the Bishop of Rome due to infallibility of St. Peter - or of any Apostle at all nor any other Bishop. Even St. Leo the Great - one of the earliest proponents or Roman primacy did not hold himself nor St. Peter to be infallible with or without cathedra.

Rome was the capital of the Empire and that is the reason why Metropolitan of this city was regarded as primate in honour.
Also Rome had enjoyed lot of respect due to purity and orthodoxy.

It is clear from the holy canons of the Ecumenical Councils that this was the only reason and nothing else.

We have given all the honour to Rome she was supposed to be given and never had problems giving it - however, what you (RCC) is asking of us today is something else - it is non-Apostolic, it is non-Catholic, it is a modern invention, it is very wrong.

Rome is the primal see - we have no problem with that - but Rome is not our ruler, king, prince or anything else, Rome is not infallible and even though it is the only Apostolic see in the West it is not so in the East - we have other four over here.

What you are doing in constant parrot song, and until you wake up to yourself and stop doing this brainwashing there wont be any peace on this forum.

I suggest that you stop going this way as it is not a subjest of this forum that we should be exposed to your JW-like repetition of some unacceptable and heterodox dogmates of the Rome.

Many years.

 

[Albion]

You are bringing it up in every thread...
So I wanted to put in one place.

link


It is well further to explain:

• that infallibility means more than exemption from actual error; it means exemption from the possibility of error;
• that it does not require holiness of life, much less imply impeccability in its organs; sinful and wicked men may be God's agents in defining infallibly;
• and finally that the validity of the Divine guarantee is independent of the fallible arguments upon which a definitive decision may be based, and of the possibly unworthy human motives that in cases of strife may appear to have influenced the result. It is the definitive result itself, and it alone, that is guaranteed to be infallible, not the preliminary stages by which it is reached.

It's probably good to refine the issue to cull out misconceptions. It still isn't the case that there is any divine guarantee of infallibility, nor, for that matter, does my Apostolic church believe that there is. I guess you can put that in the "for the record" or "for information sake" category, not that I want to engage in an argument over it.

We have only the Word of God as infallible, but you are speaking here of the ongoing, everyday decisions made in the Church where there certainly can be mistakes made.

 

[WarriorAngel]

It's probably good to refine the issue to cull out misconceptions. It still isn't the case that there is any divine guarantee of infallibility, nor, for that matter, does my Apostolic church believe that there is. I guess you can put that in the "for the record" or "for information sake" category, not that I want to engage in an argument over it.

We have only the Word of God as infallible, but you are speaking here of the ongoing, everyday decisions made in the Church where there certainly can be mistakes made.

The entire Church built by Christ is infallible.
As the Chair of Peter is the instructor with other authorities, such as excommunicating, and counseling against hederox teachings, the Chair must maintain the same teachings in all generations and keep the faithful from falling into heresy.

So when he defines the doctrines and reaffirms them using Tradition and scripture, he is doing so to keep the gates of hell from prevailing against the Church Christ established.

IF, on the other hand, the Pope was not teaching infallibly...then the Church itself is not infallible because the teachings would become lost. Without the Spirit using man to maintain them.

Christ left a Promise that nothing would bring down His Church and that He would send them the Advocate to teach them all things.

It is not the human person who is without error, but it is God the Holy Spirit Who maintains the Church error free. Therefore using the human element to do this.

I think many have a preconceived notion that Popes are automatically error free in everything they do and say...which is not the case.
When a Pope offers an opinion...we are not told we must adhere to it. His pious opinions merit we consider them.

But when He is proclaiming a definition on a doctrine [dogma] he is doing so with the Spirit's aid and help.
By using the help of the Spirit he can define doctrines and made them 'hold up' as dogma which cannot be argued against because it has always been the teachings we see in history and scriptures.

Does that help understand?

 

[Albion]

The entire Church built by Christ is infallible.
As the Chair of Peter is the instructor with other authorities, such as excommunicating, and counseling against hederox teachings, the Chair must maintain the same teachings in all generations and keep the faithful from falling into heresy.

So when he defines the doctrines and reaffirms them using Tradition and scripture, he is doing so to keep the gates of hell from prevailing against the Church Christ established.

IF, on the other hand, the Pope was not teaching infallibly...then the Church itself is not infallible because the teachings would become lost. Without the Spirit using man to maintain them.

Christ left a Promise that nothing would bring down His Church and that He would send them the Advocate to teach them all things.

It is not the human person who is without error, but it is God the Holy Spirit Who maintains the Church error free. Therefore using the human element to do this.

I think many have a preconceived notion that Popes are automatically error free in everything they do and say...which is not the case.
When a Pope offers an opinion...we are not told we must adhere to it. His pious opinions merit we consider them.

But when He is proclaiming a definition on a doctrine [dogma] he is doing so with the Spirit's aid and help.
By using the help of the Spirit he can define doctrines and made them 'hold up' as dogma which cannot be argued against because it has always been the teachings we see in history and scriptures.

Does that help understand?

I understand the RC view. I was passing along our view.

 

[Romans 13:3]

Perhaps the best use of infallibility would be to rescind infallibility. It is as hard for me to grasp as 'church conscience'. The best thing the universal church could do to be ready for the next 100 years is to look back about 1500. Look at this forum for an example. All sides use scripture to defend something that happened rather than what should happen.

Both churches have stacks of PhD theologians thinking and writing about things, so I am sure that a simpleton like me doesn't really matter. Sorry if I offended anyone's sensibilities

 

[zhilan]

WA,

Please show where the early church discusses infallibility of the Pope.

 

[Albion]

Both churches have stacks of PhD theologians thinking and writing about things, so I am sure that a simpleton like me

Thank you for posting that. There's an important point there that deserves to be considered by all of us.

Not that you or any of us is a simpleton, but that these are complicated issues with many, many facets and stacks of evidence to sway the outcome one way or another. Every church has and has had researchers and theologians of the highest rank, Bible scholars, linguists, etc.

So, it is interesting and possibly informative when anyone presents a POV or some historical fact to consider BUT...

...for any of us to type up a couple of paragraphs with a tiny bit of all this knowledge and then to proclaim, "That settles it. That's proof!" or similar words, is just silly.

That's why it is always better to present whatever anyone wants to say, and then ask, "What do you think about that?" or "Here's what our church thinks/bases its decision on" and let it go at that.