Church or papal infallibility is a demonstrably historically false belief.

SolomonVII said:

'Much assurance' is a reasonable antidote for those who fear that without infallibility, there is nothing worthwhile left.

Spirit communicating with Spirit. This is not a passive process on either case, with Lydia actively seeking out the voice of the Shepherd, and the Shepherd actively calling out for the lost sheep of Israel, through the voice of the church and Paul.
What we are left with then, even if not an infallible process, is not mere opinions of men, but is great assurance, the great assurance that comes with the indwelling Spirit, both with the evangelizers and the evangelized.

Click to expand...

... ... ... YES!

SolomonVII said:

Infallibility is demonstrably an impossible standard.
Great assurance however is what the good news of the Gospel gives us.

Click to expand...

Something tells me, that the other side of the aisle is not quite so far away, as it seems to be

razeontherock said:

... ... ... YES!



Something tells me, that the other side of the aisle is not quite so far away, as it seems to be

Click to expand...

Yeah,... maybe. On the other hand, a glance @ the poll results restores my faith in most of humanity's intellectual capacity.

SolomonVII said:

There is a lot about history that is forgotten, or simply not taught. History itself is often not dispassionate as it would be if it were pure science.
Politics was very much a contacty sport before the invention of democracy. The rise of nationalism in Europe would have seen a passing of power from a papal theocracy to ruthless kings and lords who knew what they wanted and who was standing in their way.
If yours is a correct reading of history, it is good to see to the role that pope might take when faced with overhelming power. "Give to Ceasar what is Ceasar's, and give to God what is God's would see the popes exercising their power through religious influence and the prestige of the office over the hearts and minds of Christians, once the sword is no longer available to them.
This is an important perspective to make note of, as we move forward to Trent, and the event of 1870...

Click to expand...

I agree with your take on the rise of nationalism vs. papal theocracy. I've been studying the ebb and flow of this in the years 1000-1300 C.E. It is interesting that this was a constant battle roughly from the end of the Carolingian dynasty in Gaul to 1870. The Popes were constantly trying to find one military power after another to back them. They realized that the meager military that they commanded could not stand against any national force. So compromise after compromise on the political fronts were made. The enemies they faced were daunting and it is truly a miracle that the nearly 2000 year history of the papacy did not end long ago. As a Catholic, I see the hand of God in the preservation of the papacy.

It is interesting to view hegemony in both the political and religious arenas. In the years after the fall of the Roman Empire, as roads deteriorated and Rome's military power could no longer be counted on to defend the citizens, political hegemony shrank to very small areas, roughly how far you could sally forth in one day's march. To be caught in the open invited your neighbors to attack you.

Oddly as political hegemony shrank, religious hegemony increased. Rome left not just a unified political structure; but a fairly unified religious structure. Constantine gets a lot of grief from Non-Catholic and Non-Orthodox circles as the person that started the syncretism of pagan Rome with Christianity. To me that is pure bunk. Constantine understood, as a general on the frontiers of the Roman Empire, that the only way for the Empire to last was through unification of military, political, and religious power. Today, each Catholic Bishop is in charge of a diocese, a word that used to mean the political area ruled in the Roman Empire by a local authority. As Rome's military and political power waned, the citizens often looked to the religious authorities to fill the vacuum.

As nations reunified many centuries later, they started disliking the influence the Pope had in their areas. They disliked the money that was donated to the church and taken out of their country to Rome. They disliked having the Pope select the local bishops. They disliked the fact that the church had started thriving businesses within their kingdoms and these were not subject to taxation (similar to what has happened in the U.S. where many churches have not-for-profit schools now). As the nations gained power, it was a foregone conclusion that the papacy would lose temporal power.

In regards to the Pope wielding power by the sword, I haven't found many instances of this. I agree with your thought that their power derived from the religious influence that they could exert. They ruled by the heart, not the hand. When they alienated the people to the point their hearts strayed, there was little they could do. Trent is an interesting case. It could declare anathemas that could be used as guidelines for Catholic orthodoxy; but that did nothing to sway the hearts of the people the anathemas were directed at. If you see the Inquisitions as the Pope wielding a sword to keep the people in line, then we have to get away from my big brush stroke history and into the many details of the several Inquisitions throughout history.

This is all a side issue to papal infallibility though. The Popes have never claimed any form of infallibility when it comes to the political arena.

SolomonVII said:

What would be a concern is that infallibility leads not to just better definition, but intractable definitions making change impossible.

Click to expand...

I was referring to 1870 and having a better definition of what constituted infallible papal documents. To me, a good analogy would be to the canon of the Bible. Before the late 300's, there were many documents that purported to be scripture. Many of these were read in local churches as though they were. The councils that decided the canon had to come up with a test that could be applied to sift out the best of the bunch and reject those that were not. I find it illogical to say that God inspired men to write infallible documents; but did not inspire the men that decided the canon to know what documents were infallible. The documents did not change, only their status as canonical. This standardized what could be read in the various churches. One can say that the Holy Spirit was the influence behind all of this; but one cannot deny that the Holy Spirit used men to determine this truth.

Papal infallibility works in the same way. It is never meant to invent new dogma; but only to recognize that which already exists. The charism is protected by the Holy Spirit; just like that same Spirit protects the ecumenical councils.

That is why I find your OP to be interesting. It is aimed at the heart of the matter. Can we show historically the continuity of the beliefs that have been declared infallible? You are certainly true in stating that much of history has been lost, particularly the early church history. If the Roman suppression didn't destroy it, waves of Vandals did. We are left glimpses only.

SolomonVII said:

I would be perfectly comfortable actually with defending a Catholic Church, acknowledging the excesses of the past for sure, but also understanding that no one here is in a good position to judge Christians of the past either. For sure future generations will look just as harshly on our excesses mistakes and evil as well.
A historic perspective is good and it is what places all papal decisions, all councilar decisions, and the ways of the past in the necessary context. As often as not, the decisions were made because they had to be made to meet the challenges of that day. Politics and the art of compromise were at play, because then as now were in love with the Gospel and wanted its main messages to thrive and grow. Infallibility dogma takes the words of the past out of the past and sets them in eternal stone.

What would be interesting is to note how infallibility dogma is likely has a context too, namely Garibaldi and the liberation of the Papal States, and with that the complete eradication of the papacy as a secular power.
Given the history of the Unam Sanctum, and the similar papal pronouncements in the wake of the threat to papal power and prestige posed by the Reformation, should we surmise a coincidence from these pronouncements, or a trend?

Click to expand...

It is interesting that you referred to it as the "liberation" of the Papal States as though the Pope had recently conquered these areas and they were being returned to the rightful authorities. Protestant History has painted that picture of the Popes as greedy, power hungry men clutching at the last vestiges of their temporal power. You have brought up an interesting point, though. Were Vatican I and Trent merely reactionary councils to try and solidify an eroding power base? I will throw that question out to the people reading this forum. This strikes at historical cause and effect which can be a murky thing.

razeontherock said:

Hhmmm, poll tied, I hold the deciding vote ... such power, I can't handle it!!

No, Theofane is right, the term has it's own unique meaning. Which certainly doesn't tie in to Apostles.

Click to expand...

Thos hast power of which thy knowest nothing about

2 Corinthians 12:9 and He said to me, `Sufficient for thee is My grace, for My power in infirmity is perfected;'
most gladly therefore, will I rather boast in my infirmities, that the power of the Christ may rest on me:

SolomonVII said:

Belief in Church or papal infallibility is a demonstrably historically false belief.

Click to expand...

that's it?

you are going to discoiunt a Church that has been around for 2000 years and yet you give no citations??

geez... this about says it all

as Cardinal Newman said

"to be deep into history is to cease being protestant"

all the poll proves (if that) is that there are more antiCatholics here than Catholics

truthHurts77 said:

that's it?

you are going to discoiunt a Church that has been around for 2000 years and yet you give no citations??

geez... this about says it all

as Cardinal Newman said

"to be deep into history is to cease being protestant"

Click to expand...

Well, there's Honorus, Anicetus, Xystus, Victor, Stephen, etc. who have supposedly not followed what apostles taught.

FYI, Stephen was involved in allowing heretical baptism, like from Marcion or Samosoto, as on par with Christian baptism. Firmilian and Cyprian said that's wrong, we are the Catholic Church. About 11 years ago, RC decided LDS baptism is not on par with Christian baptism, finally agreeing with what was told to the Roman Church some 1800 years prior.

Yeah, historically verifiable.

truthHurts77 said:

that's it?

you are going to discoiunt a Church that has been around for 2000 years and yet you give no citations??

geez... this about says it all

as Cardinal Newman said

"to be deep into history is to cease being protestant"

Click to expand...

A lot of RCs probably delved deep into history and ceased being Roman Catholic

truthHurts77 said:

all the poll proves (if that) is that there are more antiCatholics here than Catholics

Click to expand...

We can discuss that on this thread here and quit yer whining!

http://www.christianforums.com/t7446089/
Anti-Catholicism

Eucharisted said:

Why are certain Christians anti-Catholics?

They ask us about the Church. We give sound answers. But they ignore us.
They call us liars and pagans. We explain our beliefs. But they ignore us.
They tell us we are brainwashed. We explain ourselves. But they ignore us.
They say they are charitable but they hate us, and call this hatred "charity".
They say they are better than us and that we are worst than murderers.
They say they are more Christian than us, more holy and more saved than us.

Click to expand...

Here is a thread that appears to say the use of the word "anti" is no longer condoned and in fact, it is considered a flame. Thoughts?

http://www.christianforums.com/t7470158/
Use of "anti" All please read!!!!

Mormon members are expected to treat all members, including those non-Mormon members who may vigorously oppose their doctrines, with respect. As the term "anti-Mormon" as used in this forum has come to have the connotation of one who is against or hates Mormons as people, CF staff have decided that it is not an appropriate term for use in this forum.
Therefore, if any member refers to another member as "anti-Mormon", "an anti", "hater", "Mormon hater", or any related terms with the same meaning, such comments will from now on be regarded as flaming and will be dealt with as such.

Please review the site rules by following this link.

Click to expand...

Originally Posted by truthHurts77

all the poll proves (if that) is that there are more antiCatholics here than Catholics​

Click to expand...

SolomonVII said:

Persecution complex.

Click to expand...

Also know as the "wounded duck" syndrome

Jeremiah 29:18 And I will persecute them with the sword, with the famine, and with the pestilence,
and will deliver them to be removed to all the kingdoms of the earth, to be a curse, and an astonishment, and an hissing, and a reproach, among all the nations whither I have driven them:

Revelation 18:8 "Therefore Her plagues will come in one day -- death and mourning and famine.
And she will be utterly burned with fire, for strong [is] the Lord God who judges her.

truthHurts77 said:

all the poll proves (if that) is that there are more antiCatholics here than Catholics

Click to expand...

Not every non-Catholic is anti-Catholic, and not every statement that disagrees with Catholicism is "Catholic bashing" (I know you didn't mention the latter, but many do, and very often).

I'm not sure I've ever seen something that proved (“demonstrably”) church infallibility or papal infallibility to be historically false. And even though I have my suspicions that both are fallible, I, myself, haven't proved it to be so either. Thus, I would have to vote other.

CryptoLutheran said:

I don't believe in papal infallibility (obviously), nor ecclesiastical infallibility. The former because I don't believe the Bishop of Rome is episcopal head of the whole Church, but is simply one among equals with no greater or lesser authority than any other bishop. The latter I don't believe because I don't think it is required to maintain the importance of the Church or her sacred duty in preserving Christian doctrine. The Church can and does err, but God is faithful to the Church and won't let her be destroyed.

I view ecclesiastical infallibility as effectively irrelevant and superfluous. Not because I believe the Church has fallen (she hasn't), but because it isn't needed to maintain belief in the Church's holiness, catholicity, and apostolicity. These are preserved in Christ, not the activity of popes or councils--which can err.

Click to expand...

I like a lot of what CryptoLutheran said here, but I do wonder if it is bordering on Gnosticism since what it means to be “in Christ” is removed from the physical and earthly realm to some sort of higher plane of being or existence. I mean, it seems not impossible or improbable (and certainly not irrelevant and superfluous) for the body of Christ, which includes their earthly and worldly bodies and beings, who are becoming more and more like Christ day by day as they are transformed by and into righteousness, to be able to take on the infallibility of their Lord and God right here and right now in the real world. In fact, it seems quite essential to me that this be so. What else is prophecy, for instance, except the infallible coming into and overtaking the fallible?

Ishraqiyun said:

Sometimes I question if the term "infallible" can be attached to anything that involves humans, language, or this plane of flux and change. Supposedly we have infallible books, infallible councils, infallible churches, and infallible Popes. Half the infallible authorites don't seem to agree with one another. I have a great love for the books that make up the Bible but I'm not so sure that the texts as we now have them are perfectly free from even the slightest hint of error.

Every message conveyed in our earthly languages (Greek , Hebrew, etc..) has a certain noise to signal ratio. Even the Bible isn't free of this limitation.

Click to expand...

I really like this too. But at the same time, isn't it possible and perhaps even probable that God can and would work with and inside the “noise” so that even the noise becomes part of the signal? Unless you think that the noise is a necessary part of what it means to be human in God's plan and design.

SolomonVII said:

In none of the forms, does the original apostolic faith exist at present.

Click to expand...

I don't understand why people don't despair when they draw that conclusion.

knee-v said:

I don't understand why people don't despair when they draw that conclusion.

Click to expand...

No, because somehow, any despair is manufactured into joy when one revels in what is perceived to be hopeless church disunity.

SolomonVII said:

That is one of Standing Up's main contentions, and has been for longer than I have been here.
It has been one of the main driving forces behind Protestantism too.

For Catholics there is no despair because they believe that bishops can develop doctrine.
For me, it has been one of the central themes I have followed here:
What did the apostles(as opposed to bishops and their councils) actually teach? Whatis demonstrable, and what can only be demonstrated as coming from non-apostolic sources?

Click to expand...

All denominations develop doctrine.......