Infallibility

Chris†opher Paul · Feb 20, 2003

I was wondering about the origins of Papal Infallibility, specifically in the early Church.

Any info?

--

infallibility

In Christian thought, exemption from the possibility of error, bestowed on the church as a teaching authority, as a gift of the Holy Spirit. It has been believed since the earliest times to be guaranteed in such scriptural passages as John 14.16,17. The analogous attribute of the Bible is usually called inerrancy. Protestants widely reject infallibility of the church. The Orthodox Eastern Church holds that only the church, taken as an integral community and spiritual body guided by the Holy Spirit, is infallible. Roman Catholics hold that the infallibility of the church is vested in the pope, when he speaks ex cathedra (i.e., from the chair of Peter, as the visible head of the church) on matters of faith and morals. Definitive pronouncements resulting from an ecumenical council, when ratified by the pope, are also held to be infallible. The pope speaks ex cathedra only rarely and after long deliberation. The dogma of papal infallibility was enunciated by the First Vatican Council (1870).

http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/i1/infallib.asp

isshinwhat · Feb 20, 2003

I say visit this page, rat he-ya...

http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/papacy.htm

Have fun,

Neal

Chris†opher Paul · Feb 20, 2003

Thanks!

This page was exactly what I wanted:

http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/primacy.htm

isshinwhat · Feb 20, 2003

The whole site is amazing! Which did you like the best?

Chris†opher Paul · Feb 20, 2003

Today at 02:20 PM isshinwhat said this in Post #4 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=665402#post665402)

The whole site is amazing! Which did you like the best?

All of it! Its a gold-mine! I can get the good stuff without reading 38 books of the writings, heh.

isshinwhat · Feb 20, 2003

Reformationist · Feb 20, 2003

Today at 08:40 AM Chrisopher Paul said this in Post #1

It has been believed since the earliest times to be guaranteed in such scriptural passages as John 14.16,17.

Are you saying that John 14:16,17 supports Papal infallibility?

The analogous attribute of the Bible is usually called inerrancy.

I'm not debating here I would just like to point out that "infallible" and "inerrant" mean completely different things.

Infallible - incapable of error

Inerrant - free from error

To say that the Pope is "innerant" when speaking ex cathedra would just mean that he hasn't ever made a mistake.  To say that the Pope is "infallible" when speaking ex cathedra would mean that he cannot make a mistake.

God bless

Chris†opher Paul · Feb 20, 2003

Ref-

What do you think of the early Church believing in infallibility of the Pope?

Did you read the quotes on that site of the Church fathers?

Reformationist · Feb 20, 2003

Today at 12:28 PM Chrisopher Paul said this in Post #8

Ref-

What do you think of the early Church believing in infallibility of the Pope?

I'm not sure what you're asking. 

Did you read the quotes on that site of the Church fathers?

The one's on the website listed in this thread?  Yes.

God bless

Reformationist · Feb 20, 2003

Today at 12:28 PM Chrisopher Paul said this in Post #8

Ref-

What do you think of the early Church believing in infallibility of the Pope?

Did you read the quotes on that site of the Church fathers?

I had a question about a couple of things in a quote of Jerome's:

"This [the Catholic church] is the ark of Noah, and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails."

"He that gathers not with you scatters; he that is not of Christ is of Antichrist."

These seem to be clearly saying that anyone not a Catholic is going to hell and is not of Christ but, rather, the anti-Christ.  Did I misunderstand those statments?

Thanks,

God bless

 

chelcb · Feb 20, 2003

These seem to be clearly saying that anyone not a Catholic is going to hell and is not of Christ but, rather, the anti-Christ. Did I misunderstand those statments?

Talking about St. Jerome right?

Understand that back in the year 400 there were no protestants, no spits no schisms etc.

What he meant was those that were not Christian or those that adhered to heresy. Denying the divinity of Jesus, something along those lines.

When ever you read the word "catholic" realize the author is meaning universal.

Reformationist · Feb 20, 2003

Today at 03:02 PM chelcb said this in Post #11

Talking about St. Jerome right?

Understand that back in the year 400 there were no protestants, no spits no schisms etc.

What he meant was those that were not Christian or those that adhered to heresy. Denying the divinity of Jesus, something along those lines.

When ever you read the word "catholic" realize the author is meaning universal.

I see.  So that wouldn't represent the Catholic church's position today with regard to those that are not part of the Catholic (Roman) church, just those that are not part of the catholic (universal) church, is that right?

Thanks,

God bless

Wolseley · Feb 20, 2003

That's correct.

Malachi383 · Feb 22, 2003

www.catholic.com has lots of good passages from early Church fathers as well. You can definitly tell they were Catholic.

SSPX · Feb 22, 2003

20th February 2003 at 11:02 PM chelcb said this in Post #11 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=665890#post665890)

These seem to be clearly saying that anyone not a Catholic is going to hell and is not of Christ but, rather, the anti-Christ. Did I misunderstand those statments?

Talking about St. Jerome right?

Understand that back in the year 400 there were no protestants, no spits no schisms etc.

That is not true. The Council of Nicea was convened in the early 300's to deal with the Arian heresy, which had affected much of the Church at the time. Also there were other heretical and schismatic groups by 400, such as the Donatists, Gnostics, and Manichians. So, by 400 there were plenty of splits and schisms.

What he meant was those that were not Christian or those that adhered to heresy. Denying the divinity of Jesus, something along those lines.

When ever you read the word "catholic" realize the author is meaning universal.

St. Jerome did not mean 'catholic' in the vague sense that you are taking it to mean. His teaching is in like with the teaching of the Council of Florence, which I posted on another thread not too long ago:

"The Holy Roman Church believes, professes, and preaches that no one remaining outside the Catholic Church, not just pagans, but also Jews or heretics or schismatics, can become partakers of eternal life; but they will go to the 'everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels' (Matt.25:41), unless before the end of life they are joined to the Church. For union with the body of Christ is of such importance that the sacraments of the Church are helpful to salvation only for those remaining in it; and fasts, almsgiving, other works of piety, and the exercise of Christian warfare bear eternal rewards for them alone. And no one can be saved, no matter how much alms he has given, even if he sheds his blood for the name of Christ, unless he remains in the bosom and unity of the Church" (Denz. 714). --Council of Florence.

Joe

isshinwhat · Feb 22, 2003

There is a difference, though, Joe. A Protestant is not likely today to be a formal heretic, but an informal one. Today's Protestants are doing nothing more than trying to serve Christ in the best way they know how, the same as we are. The heretics of the days of Nicea denied Christ's divintiy, and their heresy was of a different ilk than the Protestant heresies of today. You can hardly lump all "Protestants" together. if anyone is in danger today of heresy or schism, I would say it would be the SSPX and groups who deny Christ's divintiy. Someone who misleads themselves to prove themselves right needs a lot of prayer, in my opinion.

God Bless,

Neal

chelcb · Feb 22, 2003

That is not true. The Council of Nicea was convened in the early 300's to deal with the Arian heresy, which had affected much of the Church at the time. Also there were other heretical and schismatic groups by 400, such as the Donatists, Gnostics, and Manichians. So, by 400 there were plenty of splits and schisms.

I Agree with this but didn't I also agree when I wrote this?

What he meant was those that were not Christian or those that adhered to heresy. Denying the divinity of Jesus, something along those lines.

SSPX · Feb 23, 2003

Today at 01:39 AM isshinwhat said this in Post #16 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=670270#post670270)

There is a difference, though, Joe. A Protestant is not likely today to be a formal heretic, but an informal one. Today's Protestants are doing nothing more than trying to serve Christ in the best way they know how, the same as we are. The heretics of the days of Nicea denied Christ's divintiy, and their heresy was of a different ilk than the Protestant heresies of today. You can hardly lump all "Protestants" together.

I agree that Protestants cannot all be lumped together, and although not all deny Christ's divinity (some do), that is not the only heresy out there. Every protestant denomination has its fair share of heresies. They almost all deny Mary's perpetual virginity, transubstantiantion, the sacrifice of the Mass, the priesthood and so on.

if anyone is in danger today of heresy or schism, I would say it would be the SSPX and groups who deny Christ's divintiy. Someone who misleads themselves to prove themselves right needs a lot of prayer, in my opinion.

Click to expand...

I find it odd that you would say there is less danger of heresy and schism from protestants than from the Society of St. Pius X, even though protestants already are heretics and schismatics...

Joe

chelcb · Feb 23, 2003

Joe wrote:

I agree that Protestants cannot all be lumped together, and although not all deny Christ's divinity (some do), that is not the only heresy out there. Every protestant denomination has its fair share of heresies. They almost all deny Mary's perpetual virginity, transubstantiantion, the sacrifice of the Mass, the priesthood and so on.

Yes, but they all can not be held responsible if they by no fault of their own have been raised not knowing what the truth of the Holy Catholic Church is. The reformers will be responsible for this, not the believers.

I find it odd that you would say there is less danger of heresy and schism from protestants than from the Society of St. Pius X, even though protestants already are heretics and schismatics...

I think he means because you know better and they dont.

We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

Infallibility

Based on a True Story

Pro Deo et Patria

Based on a True Story

Pro Deo et Patria

Based on a True Story

Pro Deo et Patria

Non nobis domine sed tuo nomine da gloriam

Based on a True Story

Non nobis domine sed tuo nomine da gloriam

Non nobis domine sed tuo nomine da gloriam

'Totus tuus'

Non nobis domine sed tuo nomine da gloriam

Beaucoup-Diên-Cai-Dāu

Active Member

Active Member

Pro Deo et Patria

'Totus tuus'

Active Member

'Totus tuus'

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency