Doctrine that Adds to Scripture

[kepha31]

Papal infallibility was presumed at the Council of Jerusalem because the Holy Spirit was there. It was the model for all future councils. There is nothing in Scripture saying it was the last and final council. Common sense and historical facts says there would be further controversies down through history requiring councils to resolve.

 

[Major1]

Pope Clement I, Hermas, Ignatius of Antioch and probably others all assumed it before the end of the first century. My own sig contains a quote affirming it as well.

Those passages and others are why my Church believes in papal infallibility. As is frequently the case, dogmatically defining it made official what had been understood for a long time.

But that is not verifiable resources is it?

I thought we were trying to pin down the length of infallibility. bbbbbbb has said I think that it was founded in the mid 1800's and you have said since the 1st century.

 

[thecolorsblend]

But that is not verifiable resources is it?

I thought we were trying to pin down the length of infallibility. bbbbbbb has said I think that it was founded in the mid 1800's and you have said since the 1st century.

I think you're conflating two unrelated things.

It was dogmatically defined in the 19th century as you say.

But it was SOP in the Church starting in the first century as per the sources I've cited.

It's not uncommon for the Church to define something dogmatically only when there's need to do so. Papal infallibility is one example but there are others.

 

[Major1]

I think you're conflating two unrelated things.

It was dogmatically defined in the 19th century as you say.

But it was SOP in the Church starting in the first century as per the sources I've cited.

It's not uncommon for the Church to define something dogmatically only when there's need to do so. Papal infallibility is one example but there are others.

I do not mean to argue with you but what you actullay said was..................
"Pope Clement I, Hermas, Ignatius of Antioch and probably others all assumed it before the end of the first century."

Is that the sources you are going to stick with?

 

[thecolorsblend]

I do not mean to argue with you but what you actullay said was..................
"Pope Clement I, Hermas, Ignatius of Antioch and probably others all assumed it before the end of the first century."

Is that the sources you are going to stick with?

Sure, why not?

 

[kepha31]

As has been pointed out many times here, there are at least three things that are wrong with this proposition.

1. 'Hold fast to the traditions that they had been given' tells us nothing about which traditions are to be held onto, and they most likely were not doctrines. Customs and folklore are not doctrine.

2. When the scripture mentions 'traditions' it doesn't say "Holy Tradition." The latter is just a term that was invented by the church to describe the non-Biblical doctrine that it was introducing.

3. It is not sufficient to say that the Apostles taught something or other if there is no evidence that they did!

The study of history IS important, however. I agree with that. If we DO study history we discover that much which is passed off as Holy Tradition--as well as the concept itself--actually was NOT taught by or believed by the early church.

These preconceptions have been answered many times. None of this has anything to do with Tradition as it has been defined for 2000 years. Compare these 2 definitions with your understanding:

1) CCC76 In keeping with the Lord's command, the Gospel was handed on in two ways:
- orally "by the apostles who handed on, by the spoken word of their preaching, by the example they gave, by the institutions they established, what they themselves had received - whether from the lips of Christ, from his way of life and his works, or whether they had learned it at the prompting of the Holy Spirit";33

- in writing "by those apostles and other men associated with the apostles who, under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit, committed the message of salvation to writing".34
. . . continued in apostolic succession

2) First of all, one might also loosely define tradition as the authoritative and authentic Christian history of theological doctrines and devotional practices. Christianity, like Judaism before it, is fundamentally grounded in history.

Many Protestants (especially anti-Catholic ones) hold, by and large, the view that Scripture and sacred, apostolic tradition are somehow unalterably opposed to each other and, for all practical purposes, mutually exclusive. This is yet another example of a false dichotomy which Protestantism often (unfortunately) tends to create (e.g., faith vs. works, matter vs. spirit). The Bible, however, presupposes tradition as an entity prior to and larger than itself, from which it is derived, not as some sort of “dirty word.”

It is one thing to wrongly assert that Catholic tradition (the beliefs and dogmas which the Church claims to have preserved intact passed down from Christ and the apostles) is corrupt, excessive and unbiblical. It is quite another to think that the very concept of tradition is contrary to the outlook of the Bible and pure, essential Christianity. This is, broadly speaking, a popular and widespread variant of the distinctive Protestant viewpoint of sola Scriptura, or “Scripture Alone,” which was one of the rallying cries of the Protestant Revolt in the 16th century. It remains the supreme principle of authority, or “rule of faith” for evangelical Protestants today. Sola Scriptura by its very nature tends to pit tradition against the Bible.
“Tradition” Isn’t a Dirty Word

 

[Major1]

Sure, why not?

Because "probably others all assumed it before the end of the first century", is NOT a real good source.

That means maybe they did and maybe they didn't.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Because "probably others all assumed it before the end of the first century", is NOT a real good source.

That means maybe they did and maybe they didn't.

I named a few sources in that post. You're welcome to comment upon those men whenever you want.

 

[Major1]

I named a few sources in that post. You're welcome to comment upon those men whenever you want.

You are missing the point I think. "They ALL probably ASSUMED".

I am just saying that that is not a real good source.

 

[thecolorsblend]

You are missing the point I think. "They ALL probably ASSUMED".

I am just saying that that is not a real good source.

That awkward moment when Major1 doesn't understand the context in which a word was used...

 

[Major1]

That awkward moment when Major1 doesn't understand the context in which a word was used...

Excuse me! Context is everything and Major understands very well.
He understands when someone does not want to discuss civilly things that might make a difference.

Your rudeness is really not a good Christian attitude.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Excuse me! Context is everything and Major understands very well.
He understands when someone does not want to discuss civilly things that might make a difference.

Your rudeness is really not a good Christian attitude.

I am certain I can expect a very stern talking to from @Wolf_Says.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Excuse me! Context is everything and Major understands very well.
He understands when someone does not want to discuss civilly things that might make a difference.
Your rudeness is really not a good Christian attitude.

Seriously though, nobody likes being talked down to. And you have done that several times now. I'm sure that we can all agree that rudeness is not how one wins friends and influences people. Obviously you don't appreciate being condescended to and that's perfectly understandable. Nobody does.

So from here on in, maybe it's time to be a bit more friendly, yes?

 

[bbbbbbb]

But that is not verifiable resources is it?

I thought we were trying to pin down the length of infallibility. bbbbbbb has said I think that it was founded in the mid 1800's and you have said since the 1st century.

The actual year was 1871. If papal infallibity had been understood and appreciated in the Catholic Church then there would not have been a whisper about it. However, it proved to be such a hot issue that it divided the Polish Catholic Church right down the middle.

The reality remains that the dogma of papal infallibility was developed within the Catholic Church certainly after Trent and it found dogmatic expression in 1871.

 

[Fidelibus]

Papal Infallibility
by Jeffrey Mirus, PhD

While the the First Vatican Council defined papal infallibility in 1870, you must understand that the date on which a doctrine is officially defined is not the date on which it becomes true. Rather, it was always true. It's just that different aspects of the Faith are challenged at different periods of history, and when a challenge occurs or a serious concern or question arises, then the Church will settle the difficulty by formally stating what the truth of the matter is -- to end the confusion. So papal infallibility has always been true, and, moreover, was accepted and practiced from the earliest times.

The evidence that papal infallibility is part of the Christian Faith comes from three sources.

SCRIPTURE

First, Scripture. Such passages as: "Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church; to you I give the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. Whatever you bind on earth is bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth is loosed in heaven", and "Do you love me, Peter. Feed my sheep", and "I have prayed for you, Peter, that your faith may not fail. You in turn must confirm your brethren", have always been taken to refer to a special role for Peter in the establishment of the Church, and special divine protection for Peter in the exercise of his authority.

HISTORY

Second, History. From the earliest times we see the bishops of Rome acting as if they had special authority in succession from St. Peter, and we also see the rest of the Church accepting their authority as if they knew it was genuine. Thus Pope Clement wrote to settle a problem in the Church of Corinth before the end of the 1st century. During the first few hundred years of Church history, moreover, many who were accused of heresy appealed from every corner of the known world to Rome for vindication or condemnation. The Fathers too repeatedly attest to the authority of the Roman See. And the Popes always had the decisive word at general councils, as when the Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon said in response to the Papal definition of the two natures of Christ, "Peter has spoken through Leo" -- and accepted it unhesitatingly.

LOGIC

Third, Logic. There are only two covenants, the old and the new. But the first Christians under the New Covenant had a living and infallible guide to the truth in Christ himself. Surely the lack of such a guide in future times would constitute yet another covenant -- the difference would be so radical. The argument runs as follows:

It is clear even from Scripture that Peter had a special commission and special powers from Christ to care for the flock of Christ, to bind and loose, and to confirm his brothers in faith -- indeed he had the very powers of the keys to the Kingdom. Obviously, these powers were essential to the Church as constituted by Christ. And Christ promised to be with the Church always to the end of time, and said that the powers of hell would not prevail against it.

Now, clearly Christ knew that Peter would not live until the end of time, so he must have intended that the power he gave to Peter would be carried on until His return. After all, Peter was to feed "my" (Christ's) sheep, and so was serving as the vicar of Christ in Christ's absence. When Peter died, a new vicar would take his place, and so on, until Christ returned to claim his own. The parable of the steward awaiting his Master's return is very much to the point.

Just as clearly, Peter's authority also enabled himself (and his successors) to set forth the manner in which their successors would be selected, either by choosing the successor personally before death, or by setting forth some other means -- eventually, election by the college of cardinals.

Moroever, if these special and essential powers were to pass out of existence, it would be proof that Christ was no longer with his Church and that the powers of Hell had indeed prevailed. Therefore, again, Christ must have intended successors to Peter.

For this reason, we are not at all surprised that subsequent popes claimed to have the Petrine power and that the early Christian community accepted it without question. As I indicated above, this authority was excercised by the fourth Pope, Clement, while St. John the Evangelist was still alive. The earliest Christians were in a position to know Christ's will from other sources than Scripture (just as we today, under the guidance of the Church, are able to learn from Tradition).

INFALLIBILITY ITSELF

Now we come to the specific question of infallibility, by which the successors of Peter continue to confirm the brethren. Since the successors of Peter have the same Petrine authority, which comes ultimately from Christ, to bind and loose, they have the authority to bind the faithful in matters pertaining to salvation -- that is, in faith or morals. Now, if a Pope could bind the faithful to error, it would be a clear triumph of the powers of Hell, because the entire Church would be bound to follow the error under Christ's own authority. Obviously, this cannot happen.

Therefore, the logic of the situation demands that the Petrine power of confirming the brethren must be an infallible power. When the Pope intends by virtue of his supreme authority to teach on a matter of faith and morals to the entire Church, he MUST be protected by the Holy Spirit from error -- else the powers of hell would prevail.

This is the logic behind infallibility. But, of course, it is not based solely on logic, since it is attested in Scripture and was held by the earliest Christians and the Fathers and, indeed, by the vast majority of Christians from the beginning.

Further, it is not a new thing. It was precisely defined at Vatican I in order to clarify what was at that time a confusing issue, but this was by way of stating clearly what Christ's teaching was, not by way of adding anything new. Vatican I therefore carefully enumerated the conditions under which the Pope was in fact infallible -- the same conditions which logic demands, which Scripture suggests, and which tradition shows us in action down through the centuries.

When the Pope (1) intends to teach (2) by virtue of his supreme authority (3) on a matter of faith and morals (4) to the whole Church, he is preserved by the Holy Spirit from error. His teaching act is therefore called "infallible" and the teaching which he articulates is termed "irreformable".

(source: Catholic.com)



Back to Papacy Main Menu

 

[bbbbbbb]

Papal Infallibility
by Jeffrey Mirus, PhD

While the the First Vatican Council defined papal infallibility in 1870, you must understand that the date on which a doctrine is officially defined is not the date on which it becomes true. Rather, it was always true. It's just that different aspects of the Faith are challenged at different periods of history, and when a challenge occurs or a serious concern or question arises, then the Church will settle the difficulty by formally stating what the truth of the matter is -- to end the confusion. So papal infallibility has always been true, and, moreover, was accepted and practiced from the earliest times.

The evidence that papal infallibility is part of the Christian Faith comes from three sources.

SCRIPTURE

First, Scripture. Such passages as: "Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church; to you I give the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. Whatever you bind on earth is bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth is loosed in heaven", and "Do you love me, Peter. Feed my sheep", and "I have prayed for you, Peter, that your faith may not fail. You in turn must confirm your brethren", have always been taken to refer to a special role for Peter in the establishment of the Church, and special divine protection for Peter in the exercise of his authority.

HISTORY

Second, History. From the earliest times we see the bishops of Rome acting as if they had special authority in succession from St. Peter, and we also see the rest of the Church accepting their authority as if they knew it was genuine. Thus Pope Clement wrote to settle a problem in the Church of Corinth before the end of the 1st century. During the first few hundred years of Church history, moreover, many who were accused of heresy appealed from every corner of the known world to Rome for vindication or condemnation. The Fathers too repeatedly attest to the authority of the Roman See. And the Popes always had the decisive word at general councils, as when the Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon said in response to the Papal definition of the two natures of Christ, "Peter has spoken through Leo" -- and accepted it unhesitatingly.

LOGIC

Third, Logic. There are only two covenants, the old and the new. But the first Christians under the New Covenant had a living and infallible guide to the truth in Christ himself. Surely the lack of such a guide in future times would constitute yet another covenant -- the difference would be so radical. The argument runs as follows:

It is clear even from Scripture that Peter had a special commission and special powers from Christ to care for the flock of Christ, to bind and loose, and to confirm his brothers in faith -- indeed he had the very powers of the keys to the Kingdom. Obviously, these powers were essential to the Church as constituted by Christ. And Christ promised to be with the Church always to the end of time, and said that the powers of hell would not prevail against it.

Now, clearly Christ knew that Peter would not live until the end of time, so he must have intended that the power he gave to Peter would be carried on until His return. After all, Peter was to feed "my" (Christ's) sheep, and so was serving as the vicar of Christ in Christ's absence. When Peter died, a new vicar would take his place, and so on, until Christ returned to claim his own. The parable of the steward awaiting his Master's return is very much to the point.

Just as clearly, Peter's authority also enabled himself (and his successors) to set forth the manner in which their successors would be selected, either by choosing the successor personally before death, or by setting forth some other means -- eventually, election by the college of cardinals.

Moroever, if these special and essential powers were to pass out of existence, it would be proof that Christ was no longer with his Church and that the powers of Hell had indeed prevailed. Therefore, again, Christ must have intended successors to Peter.

For this reason, we are not at all surprised that subsequent popes claimed to have the Petrine power and that the early Christian community accepted it without question. As I indicated above, this authority was excercised by the fourth Pope, Clement, while St. John the Evangelist was still alive. The earliest Christians were in a position to know Christ's will from other sources than Scripture (just as we today, under the guidance of the Church, are able to learn from Tradition).

INFALLIBILITY ITSELF

Now we come to the specific question of infallibility, by which the successors of Peter continue to confirm the brethren. Since the successors of Peter have the same Petrine authority, which comes ultimately from Christ, to bind and loose, they have the authority to bind the faithful in matters pertaining to salvation -- that is, in faith or morals. Now, if a Pope could bind the faithful to error, it would be a clear triumph of the powers of Hell, because the entire Church would be bound to follow the error under Christ's own authority. Obviously, this cannot happen.

Therefore, the logic of the situation demands that the Petrine power of confirming the brethren must be an infallible power. When the Pope intends by virtue of his supreme authority to teach on a matter of faith and morals to the entire Church, he MUST be protected by the Holy Spirit from error -- else the powers of hell would prevail.

This is the logic behind infallibility. But, of course, it is not based solely on logic, since it is attested in Scripture and was held by the earliest Christians and the Fathers and, indeed, by the vast majority of Christians from the beginning.

Further, it is not a new thing. It was precisely defined at Vatican I in order to clarify what was at that time a confusing issue, but this was by way of stating clearly what Christ's teaching was, not by way of adding anything new. Vatican I therefore carefully enumerated the conditions under which the Pope was in fact infallible -- the same conditions which logic demands, which Scripture suggests, and which tradition shows us in action down through the centuries.

When the Pope (1) intends to teach (2) by virtue of his supreme authority (3) on a matter of faith and morals (4) to the whole Church, he is preserved by the Holy Spirit from error. His teaching act is therefore called "infallible" and the teaching which he articulates is termed "irreformable".

(source: Catholic.com)

Back to Papacy Main Menu

There are few things I find as interesting as revisionist history.

 

[Fidelibus]

There are few things I find as interesting as revisionist history.

For example?

 

[Major1]

Seriously though, nobody likes being talked down to. And you have done that several times now. I'm sure that we can all agree that rudeness is not how one wins friends and influences people. Obviously you don't appreciate being condescended to and that's perfectly understandable. Nobody does.

So from here on in, maybe it's time to be a bit more friendly, yes?

That is of course your choice.

 

[bbbbbbb]

For example?

For example, neo-Nazis who are intensely engaged in rewriting German history to deny any ill will toward Jews and other peoples such that the Holocaust, in their version of history, never actually happened.

 

[kepha31]

For example?

There is no set list of ex cathedra teachings, but that’s because there are only two, and both are about Mary: her Immaculate Conception (declared by Pope Pius IX in 1854 and grandfathered in after the First Vatican Council’s declaration of papal infallibility in 1870) and her bodily Assumption into heaven (declared by Pope Pius XII in 1950).

But neither of these was earth-shattering to Catholics, because these beliefs had been nurtured through devotion, prayer, and local teaching for centuries before becoming official papal teaching.
Is there a list of infallible teachings?