Infallible Authority Of The Church.

[Xeno.of.athens]

Well I'm not sure about that. The idea of the infallibility of the church and the idea of papal infallibility are logically distinct. There are non-Catholic Christian denominations that hold to the idea of the infallibility of the Church but reject the idea of papal infallibility. Perhaps my brother in Christ dzheremi did not realize that and equates the two in his own mind, but perhaps you will need to ask him about that yourself as he has chosen to block me because I exposed the logical inconsistencies with what he wrote.

I just posted a reply to misconceptions about the meaning of Papal infallibility; God willing I shall soon post on what Papal infallibility actually means.

 

[JSRG]

Which church is the best?

Posted:August9,2005
1:00a.m Eastern


" I’m also encouraged by Benedict XVI, who seems to have inherited John Paul II’s humility as well as his loyalty to foundational doctrines. On Jan. 22, 1998, when he was still a cardinal and the grand Inquisitor of the Roman Catholic Church, he declared that their archives (4,500 large volumes) indicate a death toll of 25 million killed by the Catholic Church for being “heretics.” And likely two-thirds of the original volumes are lost. That kind of honesty will help relations (though there is no basis for uniting the RCC with Bible-believing Protestant churches)."

So, I've seen someone else claim this before, and linking to the exact same article you do. The article on World Net Daily offers no citation or evidence for its claim that Benedict XVI (then Joseph Ratzinger) "declared that their archives... indicate[d] a death toll of 25 million killed by the Catholic Church". It does specify January 22 of 1998, so I did some searches for that time. While I found articles saying he opened the inquisitorial records to scholars on that date for research, none of them gave any indication he ever offered any "25 million" estimate.

World Net Daily is generally not considered a particularly reliable source, and I'm certainly not going to accept a claim it makes with no citation whatsoever and that I can find no evidence of outside of them. Can you provide evidence that Benedict XVI ever made this remark outside of a citation-less article from a dubious source?

================= A few tiny examples --
¨1540 -1570 Roman Catholic armies kill at least 900,000 Waldensians Christians of all ages


1550 - 1560 the death of at least 250,000 Dutch Protestants

1572 St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre kills at least 10,000 Protestants during the first three days. .

1641 -1649 death of at least 100,000 Irish Protestants.

1685 French Roman Catholic soldiers kill approximately 500,000 French Protestant Huguenots on the orders of Roman Catholic King Louis 14 of France

You offer no evidence or citations for any of these. However, I'll look into the specific claim that in 1685, "French Roman Catholic soldiers kill approximately 500,000 French Protestant Huguenots on the orders of Roman Catholic King Louis 14 of France." While it is true Louis XVI revoked religious tolerance for the Huguenots and persecuted them starting in that year, after consulting several scholarly sources (not polemical ones), I do not see indications that there were approximately 500,000 French Protestant Huguenots killed by French Roman Catholic soldiers at his orders. The persecution was more in the form of harassment, and sometimes imprisonment, not mass executions as would be required to reach such a high number of hundreds of thousands of deaths.

The Encyclopedia Britannica's 11th edition article on Huguenots, while being harshly critical of the persecution ("There is perhaps no example in history of so cruel a persecution as this" which seems an overstatement but at least shows it has a decidedly pro-Huguenot viewpoint so one can't try to claim it's downplaying things) makes no mention of a death toll of 500,000, though it does say 400,000 left the country ("[France] in the course of a few years lost more than 400,000 of its inhabitants, men who, having to choose between their conscience and their country, endowed the nations which received them with their heroism, their courage and their ability.")

I look at the Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge and its article on Huguenots, specifically the section on the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes (page 398 of volume 5). It grants no support for the claim of five hundred thousand killed. It tells me "Thousands, some of them educated ministers, were sent to the galleys, where many died of hardship; thousands died in prison; and hundreds, if not thousands, were cruelly executed." I am not so sure if people dying in galleys or prison should be count as being killed by soldiers as was your claim, but even if we count those, I do not see how we can get to a count of five hundred thousand off of mere "thousands." The numbers the source gives in hundreds of thousands are not deaths; rather, it says "some hundreds of thousands professed conversions, while several thousand left France."

Neither of these are particularly pro-Catholic sources, but neither back up any claim of anything close to 500,000 people being killed. But perhaps someone will complain that those sources are old, coming from the early 20th century. Fair enough; I selected them mostly because they're conveniently in public domain. But if one wants one more up to date, the modern version of the article on britannica.com repeats it losing 400,000 of its inhabitants, but again appears to be referring to them leaving the country as it immediately refers to them emigrating afterwards. I also looked a bit through the work "The persecution of Huguenots and French economic development, 1680-1720" (1960), or at least the parts that seemed most relevant. This work received fairly positive reviews in journals. While my reading was a bit cursory, I didn't catch any statements of there being the kinds of mass executions that would be required to add up to 500,000 deaths of French Huguenots at the hands of French soldiers.

Thus this claim of 500,000 French Huguenots being killed by soldiers at the orders of Louis XIV, at least from the research I did, seems simply false. I'm going to guess the 500,000 claim comes from an estimation of a reduction in number of Huguenots in France, but as we've seen that reduction doesn't seem to be from being killed, but rather from either leaving France or (nominally, at least) converting to Catholicism.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

The Pope's Infallibility, therefore, does not in any way trespass on civil authority; for the Pope's jurisdiction belongs to spiritual matters, while the duty of the State is to provide for the temporal welfare of its subjects.

What, then, is the real doctrine of Infallibility? It simply means that the Pope, as successor of St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles, by virtue of the promises of Jesus Christ, is preserved from error of judgment when he promulgates to the Church a decision on faith or morals.

The Pope, therefore, be it known, is not the maker of the Divine law; he is only its expounder. He is not the author of revelation, but only its interpreter. All revelation came from God alone through His inspired ministers, and it was complete in the beginning of the Church. The Holy Father has no more authority than you or I to break one iota of the Scripture, and he is equally with us the servant of the Divine law.

In a word, the Sovereign Pontiff is to the Church, though in a more eminent degree, what the Supreme Court is to the United States. We have an instrument called the Constitution of the United States, which is the charter of our civil rights and liberties. If a controversy arises regarding a constitutional clause, the question is referred in the last resort, to the Supreme Court at Washington. The Chief Justice, with his associate judges, examines into the case and then pronounces judgment upon it; and this decision is final, irrevocable and practically infallible.

If there were no such court to settle constitutional questions, the Constitution itself would soon become a dead letter. Every litigant would conscientiously decide the dispute in his own favour and anarchy, separation and civil war would soon follow. But by means of this Supreme Court disputes are ended, and the political union of the States is perpetuated. There would have been no civil war in 1861 had our domestic quarrel been submitted to the legitimate action of our highest court of judicature, instead of being left to the arbitrament of the sword.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

So, I've seen someone else claim this before, and linking to the exact same article you do.

The link is to a site that features a great many books by David Limbaugh; a right wing political and religious writer. I do not know if he has links to Seventh Day Adventism, but he is definitely on the far right fringe.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

The revealed Word of God is the constitution of the Church. This is the Magna Charta of our Christian liberties. The Pope is the official guardian of our religious constitution, as the Chief Justice is the guardian of the USA's civil constitution.

When a dispute arises in the Church regarding the sense of Scripture the subject is referred to the Pope for final adjudication. The Sovereign Pontiff, before deciding the case, gathers around him his venerable colleagues, the Cardinals of the Church; or he calls a council of his associate judges of faith, the Bishops of Christendom; or he has recourse to other lights which the Holy Ghost may suggest to him. Then, after mature and prayerful deliberation, he pronounces judgment and his sentence is final, irrevocable and infallible.

If the Catholic Church were not fortified by this Divinely-established supreme tribunal, she would be broken up, like the sects around her, into a thousand fragments and religious anarchy would soon follow. But by means of this infallible court her marvellous unity is preserved throughout the world. This doctrine is the keystone in the arch of Catholic faith, and, far from arousing opposition, it ought to command the unqualified admiration of every reflecting mind.

These explanations being premised, let us now consider the grounds of the doctrine of Papal Infallibility itself.

 

[IcyChain]

The link is to a site that features a great many books by David Limbaugh; a right wing political and religious writer. I do not know if he has links to Seventh Day Adventism, but he is definitely on the far right fringe.

Thanks. I suspected that the information there was fabricated but did not bother considering the veracity of each of the alleged facts because his general form of argumentation contains a logical fallacy.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

A long post, from a book called THE FAITH OF OUR FATHERS written by Cardinal Gibbons.

The following passages of the Gospel, spoken at different times, were addressed exclusively to Peter: “Thou art Peter; and on this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”176 “I, the Supreme Architect of the universe,” says our Savior, “will establish a Church which is to last till the end of time. I will lay the foundation of this Church so deep and strong on the rock of truth that the winds and storms of error shall not prevail against it. Thou, O Peter, shalt be the foundation of this Church. It shall never fall, because thou shalt never be shaken; and thou shalt never be shaken, because thou shalt rest on Me, the rock of truth.” The Church, of which Peter is the foundation, is declared to be impregnable—that is, proof against error. How can you suppose an immovable edifice built on a tottering foundation? For it is not the building that sustains the foundation, but it is the foundation that supports the building.

“And I will give to thee the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven.”177 Thou shalt hold the keys of truth with which to open to the faithful the treasures of heavenly science. “Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in Heaven.”178 The judgment which thou shalt pronounce on earth I will ratify in heaven. Surely the God of Truth is incapable of sanctioning an untruthful judgment.

“Behold, Satan hath desired to have you (My Apostles), that he may sift you as wheat. But I have prayed for thee (Peter) that thy faith fail not; and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren.”179 It is worthy of note that Jesus prays only for Peter. And why for Peter in particular? Because on his shoulders was to rest the burden of the Church. Our Lord prays for two things: First—That the faith of Peter and of his successors might not fail. Second—That Peter would confirm his brethren in the faith, “in order,” as St. Leo says, “that the strength given by Christ to Peter should descend on the Apostles.”

We know that the prayer of Jesus is always heard. Therefore the faith of Peter will always be firm. He was destined to be the oracle which all were to consult. Hence we always find him the prominent figure among the Apostles, the first to speak, the first to act on every occasion. He was to be the guiding star that was to lead the rest of the faithful in the path of truth. He was to be in the hierarchy of the Church what the sun is in the planetary system—the centre around which all would revolve. And is it not a beautiful spectacle, in harmony with our ideas of God's providence, to behold in His Church a counterpart of the starry system above us? There every planet moves in obedience to a uniform law, all are regulated by one great luminary. So, in the spiritual order, we see every member of the Church governed by one law, controlled by one voice, and that voice subject to God.

“Feed My lambs; feed My sheep.”180 Peter is appointed by our Lord the universal shepherd of His flock—of the sheep and of the lambs—that is, shepherd of the Bishops and Priests as well as of the people. The Bishops are shepherds, in reference to their flocks; they are sheep, in reference to the Pope, who is the shepherd of shepherds. The Pope, as shepherd, must feed the flock not with the poison of error, but with the healthy food of sound doctrine; for he is not a shepherd, but a hireling, who administers pernicious food to his flock.

Among the General Councils of the Church already held I shall mention only three, as the acts of these Councils are amply sufficient to vindicate the unerring character of the See of Rome and the Roman Pontiffs. I wish also to call your attention to three facts: First—That none of these Councils were held in Rome; Second—That one of them assembled in the East, viz: in Constantinople; and, Third—That in every one of them the Oriental and the Western Bishops met for the purpose of reunion.

The Eighth General Council, held in Constantinople in 869, contains the following solemn profession of faith: “Salvation primarily depends upon guarding the rule of right faith. And since we cannot pass over the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, who says, ‘Thou art Peter, and on this rock I will build My Church,’ what was said is confirmed by facts, because in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved immaculate, and holy doctrine has been proclaimed. Not wishing, then, to be separated from this faith and doctrine, we hope to merit to be in the one communion which the Apostolic See preaches, in which See is the full and true solidity of the Christian religion.”

This Council clearly declares that immaculate doctrine has always been preserved and preached in the Roman See. But how could this be said of her, if the Roman See ever fell into error, and how could that See be preserved from error, if the Roman Pontiffs presiding over it ever erred in faith?

In the Second General Council of Lyons (1274), the Greek Bishops made the following profession of faith: “The holy Roman Church possesses full primacy and principality over the universal Catholic Church, which primacy, with the plenitude of power, she truly and humbly acknowledges to have received from our Lord Himself, in the person of Blessed Peter, Prince or Head of the Apostles, whose successor the Roman Pontiff is; and as the Roman See, above all others, is bound to defend the truth of faith, so, also, if any questions on faith arise, they ought to be defined by her judgment.”

Here the Council of Lyons avows that the Roman Pontiffs have the power to determine definitely, and without appeal, any questions of faith which may arise in the Church; in other words, the Council acknowledges them to be the supreme and infallible arbiters of faith.

“We define,” says the Council of Florence (1439), at which also were present the Bishops of the Greek and the Latin Church, “we define that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of the Blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and the true Vicar of Christ, the Head of the whole Church, the Father and Doctor of all Christians, and we declare that to him, in the person of Blessed Peter, was given, by Jesus Christ our Savior, full power to feed, rule and govern the universal Church.”

The Pope is here called the true Vicar or representative of Christ in this lower kingdom of His Church militant—that is, the Pope is the organ of our Savior, and speaks His sentiments in faith and morals. But if the Pope erred in faith and morals he would no longer be Christ's Vicar and true representative. Our minister in England, for instance, would not truly represent our Government if he was not the organ of its sentiments. The Roman Pontiff is called the Head of the whole Church—that is, the visible Head. Now the Church, which is the Body of Christ, is infallible. It is, as St. Paul says, “without spot or wrinkle, or any such thing.” But how can you suppose an infallible body with a fallible head? How can an erring head conduct a body in the unerring ways of truth and justice?

He is declared by the same Council to be the Father and Doctor of all Christians. How can you expect an unerring family under an erring Father? The Pope is called the universal teacher or doctor. Teacher of what? Of truth, not of error. Error is to the mind what poison is to the body. You do not call poison food; neither can you call error doctrine. The Pope, as universal teacher, must always give to the faithful not the poisonous food of error, but the sound aliment of pure doctrine.

In fine, the Pope is also styled the Chief Pilot of the Church. It was not without a mysterious significance that our Lord entered Peter's bark instead of that of any of the other Apostles. This bark, our Lord has pledged Himself, shall never sink nor depart from her true course. How can you imagine a stormproof, never-varying bark under the charge of a fallible Pilot?

But did not the Vatican Council in promulgating the definition of Papal Infallibility in 1870, create a new doctrine of revelation? And did not the Church thereby forfeit her glorious distinction of being always unchangeable in her teaching?

The Council did not create a new creed, but rather confirmed the old one. It formulated into an article of faith a truth which in every age had been accepted by the Catholic world because it had been implicitly contained in the deposit of revelation.

I may illustrate this point by referring again to our Supreme Court. When the Chief Justice, with his colleagues, decides a constitutional question, his decision, though presented in a new shape, cannot be called a new doctrine, because it is based on the letter and spirit of the Constitution.

In like manner, when the Church issues a new dogma of faith, that decree is nothing more than a new form of expressing an old doctrine, because the decision must be drawn from the revealed Word of God.

The course pursued by the Church, regarding the infallibility of the Pope was practiced by her in reference to the Divinity of Jesus Christ. Our Savior was acknowledged to be God from the beginning of the Church. Yet His Divinity was not formally defined till the Council of Nicæa in the fourth century, and it would not have been defined even then had it not been denied by Arius. And who will have the presumption to say that the belief in the Divinity of our Lord had its origin in the fourth century?

The following has always been the practice prevailing in the Church of God from the beginning of her history. Whenever Bishops or National Councils promulgated doctrines or condemned errors they always transmitted their decrees to Rome for confirmation or rejection. What Rome approved, the universal Church approved; what Rome condemned, the Church condemned.

Thus, in the third century, Pope St. Stephen reverses the decision of St. Cyprian, of Carthage, and of a council of African bishops regarding a question of baptism.

Pope St. Innocent I., in the fifth century, condemns the Pelagian heresy, in reference to which St. Augustine wrote this memorable sentence: “The acts of two councils were sent to the Apostolic See, whence an answer was returned. The question is ended. Would to God that the error also had ceased.”

In the fourteenth century Gregory XI. condemns the heresy of Wycliffe.

Pope Leo X., in the sixteenth, anathematizes Luther.

Innocent X., in the seventeenth, at the solicitation of the French Episcopate, condemns the subtle errors of the Jansenists, and in the nineteenth century Pius IX. promulgates the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.

Here we find the Popes in various ages condemning heresies and proclaiming doctrines of faith; and they could not in a stronger manner assert their infallibility than by so defining doctrines of faith and condemning errors. We also behold the Church of Christendom ever saying Amen to the decisions of the Bishops of Rome. Hence it is evident that, in every age, the Church recognized the Popes as infallible teachers.

Every independent government must have a supreme tribunal regularly sitting to interpret its laws, and to decide cases of controversy likely to arise. Thus we have in Washington the Supreme Court of the United States.

Now the Catholic Church is a complete and independent organization, as complete in its spiritual sphere as the United States Government is in the temporal order. The Church has its own laws, its own autonomy and government.

The Church, therefore, like civil powers, must have a permanent and stationary supreme tribunal to interpret its laws and to determine cases of religious controversy.

What constitutes this permanent supreme court of the Church? Does it consist of the Bishops assembled in General Council? No; because this is not an ordinary but an extraordinary tribunal which meets, on an average, only once in a hundred years.

Is it composed of the Bishops scattered throughout the world? By no means, because it would be impracticable to consult all the Bishops of Christendom upon every issue that might arise in the Church. The poison of error would easily spread through the body of the Church before a decision could be rendered by the Prelates dispersed throughout the globe. The Pope, then, as Head of the Catholic Church, constitutes, with just reason, this supreme tribunal.

And as the office of the Church is to guide men into all truth, and to preserve them from all error, it follows that he who is appointed to watch over the constitution of the Church must be infallible, or exempt from error in his official capacity as judge of faith and morals. The prerogatives of the Pope must be commensurate with the nature of the constitution which he has to uphold. The constitution is Divine and must have a Divinely protected interpreter.

But you will tell me that infallibility is too great a prerogative to be conferred on man. I answer: Has not God, in former times, clothed His Apostles with powers far more exalted? They were endowed with the gifts of working miracles, of prophecy and inspiration; they were the mouth-piece communicating God's revelation, of which the Popes are merely the custodians. If God could make man the organ of His revealed Word, is it impossible for Him to make man its infallible guardian and interpreter? For, surely, greater is the Apostle who gives us the inspired Word than the Pope who preserves it from error.

If, indeed, our Saviour had visibly remained among us, no interpreter would be needed, since He would explain His Gospel to us; but as He withdrew His visible presence from us, it was eminently reasonable that He should designate someone to expound for us the meaning of His Word.

A Protestant Bishop, in the course of a sermon against Papal Infallibility, recently used the following language: “For my part, I have an infallible Bible, and this is the only infallibility that I require.” This assertion, though plausible at first sight, cannot for a moment stand the test of sound criticism.

Let us see, sir, whether an infallible Bible is sufficient for you. Either you are infallibly certain that your interpretation of the Bible is correct or you are not.

If you are infallibly certain, then you assert for yourself, and of course for every reader of the Scripture, a personal infallibility which you deny to the Pope, and which we claim only for him. You make every man his own Pope.

If you are not infallibly certain that you understand the true meaning of the whole Bible—and this is a privilege you do not claim—then, I ask, of what use to you is the objective infallibility of the Bible without an infallible interpreter?

If God, as you assert, has left no infallible interpreter of His Word, do you not virtually accuse Him of acting unreasonably? for would it not be most unreasonable in Him to have revealed His truth to man without leaving him a means of ascertaining its precise import?

Do you not reduce God's word to a bundle of contradictions, like the leaves of the Sybil, which gave forth answers suited to the wishes of every inquirer?

Of the hundred and more Christian sects now existing in this country, does not each take the Bible as its standard of authority, and does not each member draw from it a meaning different from that of his neighbour? Now, in the mind of God the Scriptures can have but one meaning. Is not this variety of interpretations the bitter fruit of your principle: “An infallible Bible is enough for me,” and does it not proclaim the absolute necessity of some authorized and unerring interpreter? You tell me to drink of the water of life; but of what use is this water to my parched lips, since you acknowledge that it may be poisoned in passing through the medium of your interpretation?

How satisfactory, on the contrary, and how reasonable is the Catholic teaching on this subject!

According to that system, Christ says to every Christian: Here, my child, is the Word of God, and with it I leave you an infallible interpreter, who will expound for you its hidden meaning and make clear all its difficulties.

Here are the waters of eternal life, but I have created a channel that will communicate these waters to you in all their sweetness without sediment of error.

Here is the written Constitution of My Church. But I have appointed over it a Supreme Tribunal, in the person of one “to whom I have given the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven,” who will preserve that Constitution inviolate, and will not permit it to be torn into shreds by the conflicting opinions of men. And thus my children will be one, as I and the Father are one.

176.Matt. xvi.
177.Matt. xvi.
178.Ibid.
179.Luke xxii. 31, 32.
180.John xxi. 16, 17.

 

[Philip_B]

No, not unless it is quoting Dogma, holy scripture, or moral teaching that is infallible. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is a catechism, not a compendium of Church dogma.

Perhaps we need to understand Dogma because when it comes to the Catholic Church some Catholics become quite dogmatic.

As a catholic Christian who is not a Catholic Christian, I get a bit lost here.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Perhaps we need to understand Dogma because when it comes to the Catholic Church some Catholics become quite dogmatic.

As a catholic Christian who is not a Catholic Christian, I get a bit lost here.

Never fear, Dogma is doctrine that is unquestionably part of the deposit of faith that the Catholic Church - that is to say it is without question part of Apostolic Tradition.

 

[IcyChain]

As a catholic Christian who is not a Catholic Christian, I get a bit lost here.

Funny. As soon as I read this I thought to myself “I bet he is Anglican” (not that there is anything wrong with that).

 

[prodromos]

he has chosen to block me because I exposed the logical inconsistencies with what he wrote.

You certainly hold a high opinion of yourself. I'll leave you to your echo chamber.

 

[prodromos]

As the doctrine of Papal Infallibility is strangely misapprehended by our separated brethren, because it is grievously misrepresented by those who profess to be enlightened ministers of the Gospel, I shall begin by stating what Infallibility does not mean, and shall then explain what it really is.

First—The infallibility of the Popes does not signify that they are inspired. The Apostles were endowed with the gift of inspiration, and we accept their writings as the revealed Word of God.

No Catholic, on the contrary, claims that the Pope is inspired or endowed with Divine revelation properly so called.

“For the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter in order that they might spread abroad new doctrine which He reveals, but that, under His assistance, they might guard inviolably, and with fidelity explain, the revelation or deposit of faith handed down by the Apostles.” [Council, Vatican I: Const. Pastor Æternus, c. 4.]

Second—Infallibility does not mean that the Pope is impeccable or specially exempt from liability to sin. The Popes have been, indeed, with few exceptions, men of virtuous lives. Many of them are honoured as martyrs. Eighty-two out of the two hundred and sixty-six that sat on the chair of Peter are invoked upon our altars as saints eminent for their holiness.

The avowed enemies of the Church charge only five or six Popes with immorality. Thus, even admitting the truth of the accusations brought against them, we have forty-four virtuous to one bad Pope, while there was a Judas Iscariot among the twelve Apostles.

But although a vast majority of the Sovereign Pontiffs should have been so unfortunate as to lead vicious lives, this circumstance would not of itself impair the validity of their prerogatives, which are given not for the preservation of their morals, but for the guidance of their judgment; for, there was a Balaam among the Prophets, and a Caiphas among the High Priests of the Old Law.

The present illustrious Pontiff is a man of no ordinary sanctity. He has already filled the highest position in the Church for upwards of ten years, “a spectacle to the world, to angels, and to men,” and no man can point out a stain upon his moral character.

And yet Francis, like his predecessors, confesses his sins every week. Each morning, at the beginning of Mass, he says at the foot of the altar, “I confess to Almighty God, and to His Saints, that I have sinned exceedingly in thought, word and deed.” And at the Offertory of the Mass he says: “Receive, O Holy Father, almighty, everlasting God, this oblation which I, Thy unworthy servant, offer for my innumerable sins, offences and negligences.”

With these facts before their eyes, I cannot comprehend how ministers of the Gospel betray so much ignorance, or are guilty of so much malice, as to proclaim from their pulpits, which ought to be consecrated to truth, that Infallibility means exemption from sin. I do not see how they can benefit their cause by so flagrant perversions of truth.

Third—Bear in mind, also, that this Divine assistance is guaranteed to the Pope not in his capacity as private teacher, but only in his official capacity, when he judges of faith and morals as Head of the Church. If a Pope, for instance, like Benedict XVI. were to write a treatise on Canon Law his book would be as much open to criticism as that of any Doctor of the Church.

Fourth—Finally, the inerrability of the Popes, being restricted to questions of faith and morals, does not extend to the natural sciences, such as astronomy or geology, unless where error is presented under the false name of science, and arrays itself against revealed truth. [Council, Vatican I: Const. Dei Filius, cap. 4; Colossians 2:8.] It does not, therefore, concern itself about the nature and motions of the planets. Nor does it regard purely political questions, such as the form of government a nation ought to adopt, or for what candidates we ought to vote.

You did not post a link to the source of your copy/paste.

 

[dzheremi]

It may stem from the thought that admitting that the Church is infallible carries with it the possibility that not only are Church councils infallible but perhaps also the bishops who make up a council have a gift of infallibility when in council and that could imply that a pope is infallible too which would send our OO and EO brethren into an epistemological tizzy.

I can't speak for the EO in any case (I wouldn't assume that they necessarily have the same view as we do concerning councils in the first place, but that's for another discussion), but I wouldn't worry about that, since none of this follows if we establish from the outset that no bishop is infallible in any circumstance, and councils are not in themselves infallible, which are two points for which I have faced much opposition in this thread. No matter, since I also brought up examples meant to show how this is the case, even going out of my way to use ones that obviously do not make 'my side' look very good (e.g., the participation of HH St. Theophilos in the repudiated Synod of the Oak in 403, and the deposing of Pope Yusab II in the 1950s), so as to hopefully not be charged with a tribal sort of partiality. Not that it's really done much to stop this silliness, but y'know, effort has been made.

If I hadn't been around the block already I might wonder why it is you and your Catholic coreligionists feel the need to declare things infallible to begin with, but it is clear enough how well this serves claims of Papal infallibility (as you yourself have outlined it above), which is what this is really about anyway. Not that the Church be preserved in the Orthodox faith or anything like that (since it's apparently not good enough to identify that by the consistency of its content, sans the "infallible" stamp-of-approval), but so that your ecclesiological stance fits together with your appraisal of councils, and vice-versa. Well, congratulations, then. Let no one say that the RCC system is not self-perpetuating and logical in this way. Still doesn't make it right, but that's a quibble next to its almighty logic.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

You did not post a link to the source of your copy/paste.

Cardinal gibbons

 

[prodromos]

Cardinal gibbons

Catholic Cornucopia: The Faith of Our Fathers: XI. Infallibility of the Popes

You copy/paste anything, you are obliged to link the source.

 

[IcyChain]

Have

You certainly hold a high opinion of yourself. I'll leave you to your echo chamber.

Have a blessed day.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Sometimes I need to go back and read my own OP just to figure out what a thread that I started is about; the capacity for people in CF to divert a thread to some pet topic is amazing. This thread is about Church authority. Not specifically Catholic Church authority, nor personal opinion authority, nor papal opinion authority. Nor is it about the sabbath, the ten commandments, nor any other pet topic.

 

[Fervent]

Sometimes I need to go back and read my own OP just to figure out what a thread that I started is about; the capacity for people in CF to divert a thread to some pet topic is amazing. This thread is about Church authority. Not specifically Catholic Church authority, nor personal opinion authority, nor papal opinion authority. Nor is it about the sabbath, the ten commandments, nor any other pet topic.

It's not really possible to talk about an amorphous "church authority." It is only when an ecclesial tradition is identified that it is possible to discuss, and that makes it essential to talk about many of the issues that have been discussed in this thread you seem to think are diversions.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

It's not really possible to talk about an amorphous "church authority." It is only when an ecclesial tradition is identified that it is possible to discuss, and that makes it essential to talk about many of the issues that have been discussed in this thread you seem to think are diversions.

The Church is not amorphous, she is one, holy, catholic, and apostolic. One does not mean many nor does it mean invisible or hidden. Holy means both good in conduct and in word, what the Church teaches is true, it has to be true because what the Church teaches is what Christ teaches. Catholic means "according to the whole" or "universal", the Church is everywhere and everywhen. And apostolic means according to the teaching and practise of the apostles of Jesus Christ, the twelve specifically, whom Christ chose, and upon whom the Holy Spirit came and taught all the things that they would need to know in order to fulfil Christ's commandments.

But this Church is not anonymous, nor have I left her unnamed, it is catholic, it is orthodox, it is true and enduring, it is ancient, it is present on earth and always has been and will be until the consummation of the ages. The Church is not a denomination, nor is it an invisibly united collection of born-again-believers who cannot be identified by earthly senses. The Church is a body, and a community, of people, she is present in the world and identifiable.

 

[Fervent]

The Church is not amorphous, she is one, holy, catholic, and apostolic. One does not mean many nor does it mean invisible or hidden. Holy means both good in conduct and in word, what the Church teaches is true, it has to be true because what the Church teaches is what Christ teaches. Catholic means "according to the whole" or "universal", the Church is everywhere and everywhen. And apostolic means according to the teaching and practise of the apostles of Jesus Christ, the twelve specifically, whom Christ chose, and upon whom the Holy Spirit came and taught all the things that they would need to know in order to fulfil Christ's commandments.

But this Church is not amorphous, not have I left it unnamed, it is catholic, it is orthodox, it is true and enduring, it is ancient, it is present on earth and always has been and will be until the consummation of the ages. The Church is not a denomination, nor is it an invisibly united collection of born-again-believers who cannot be identified by earthly senses. The Church is a body, and a community, of people, she is present in the world and identifiable.

So you're speaking out of both sides of your mouth, then? Since on the one hand you say it isn't specifically about Roman Catholic authority and on the other you clearly intend to shoehorn in the Roman church as that authority. Being a bit duplicitous, aren't you?