Did no one question papal infallibility until 1870? Why was it not confined until then?
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Papal Infallibility
- Thread starter QuagDabPeg
- Start date
- Status
Markh
Extra Mariam Nulla Salus
- Dec 12, 2003
- 2,908
- 191
- 39
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
I think that infallibility would have been accepted for a long time, certainly, supremacy of Peter was always the case.
I think external events, like the treaty of westphalia, called for the dogma to be proclaimed.
I think external events, like the treaty of westphalia, called for the dogma to be proclaimed.
Upvote
0
S
St_Joseph_Cupertino
Guest
QuagDabPeg said:
Here are two really great websites on the issue: (I'll also have to read the whole articles to understand it all, but I found them and thought maybe you can use them)
http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/papac2.htm
http://www.catholicfaithandreason.org/papal_infallibility.htm
Peace in Christ!
Upvote
0
nyj said:
I wasn't trying to make a point. I'm just wondering why it took so long. 300 years isn't that long. That makes sense. But 1870 years is a heck of a lot more than 300. Was it never challenged before them? Why didn't they define it right after the schism, since it was obviously challenged then. Or wasn't it even challanged by the Coptics in like 400 or something? It seems that usually things get defined when they get challenged. Why didn't they define this earlier?
Thanks for the links St_Joseph_Cupertino, I'll check those out!
Upvote
0
St_Joseph_Cupertino said:
I checked out those links. They are good links, but not exactly on my question. I'm not asking for proof or papal infallibily or why we believe in it, but rather, why it took so long to define it. It just seem strange to me that through all the tourmoil in the church with the schism and various groups beginning to break off, why wasn't it defined earlier - like in 500 after the Coptics first challenged it? Were they just not important enough (or maybe important's not the right word, but big enough maybe) to warrant it?
Upvote
0
S
St_Joseph_Cupertino
Guest
I guess it was just accepted before then...
They probably didn't challenge it, (I'm guessing) because they were either in -line with the Pope, or just rejected everything and left the church...I think it might just be a cut-and-dry issue here.
Like, I ask myself, why didn't I question my protestant movement's origins before....I just accepted it all, without even thinking about why our church only started in the 1900's....it's probably the same thing.
My thoughts, anyway.
Peace in Christ!
They probably didn't challenge it, (I'm guessing) because they were either in -line with the Pope, or just rejected everything and left the church...I think it might just be a cut-and-dry issue here.
Like, I ask myself, why didn't I question my protestant movement's origins before....I just accepted it all, without even thinking about why our church only started in the 1900's....it's probably the same thing.
My thoughts, anyway.
Peace in Christ!
Upvote
0
I believe the Melkite patriach walked out of the council over that issue. Some bishops tried to stay and fight, and they secured some qualifications to the doctrine (eg, the Pope can't contradict a constant teaching of the Church).
Upvote
0
QuagDabPeg said:
I think the schism was about the role of the Pope in general, not about whether a Papal pronouncement on faith and morals is infallible.
Upvote
0
Are there any infallible doctrines that we hold declaired beofore the 1870 declaration? By this I mean things declaired by the Pope, not by a coucil (for example, I know there are several doctrines held by both the EO chuch and the RCC on things like the nature of Christ, ect, but I think these were declaired in cousils, not by the Pope himself)
Upvote
0
Paul S
Salve, regina, mater misericordiæ
- Sep 12, 2004
- 7,872
- 281
- 48
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Republican
QuagDabPeg said:
I think there's some in the book of Acts, when Peter decides that Gentiles don't have to first become Jews before they can become Christian, and says circumcision is no longer necessary.
Upvote
0
Can't anyone give me even one example outside of the bible and before the declairation? And no one addressed why they didn't say anything after the Coptics left. Were they not big/important enough?
Upvote
0
The question in the OP, as well as the theme of the OP in this thread is a bit of a Red Herring because it is analogous to asking for examples of explicit promulgations of the Trinity before First Council of Nicea. Or explicit promulgations of the Hypostatic Union prior to the Council of Chalcedon. You will find none of this, which proves nothing, since these truths existed prior to the councils which difined them. The same is true of papal infallibility. Having said that, I would say that probably the earliest post-New Testament evidence of papal infallibility is found in St. Clement of Rome, in his First Letter to the Corinthians. I don't mean to sound rude, but I've neither the time nor the inclination to provide the background information surrounding this letter of St. Clement. Especially considering that the entire purpose of this thread would appear to be simply yet another occasion of seeking to find sufficient fault with Catholic doctrine, trying to find some crack to slip through in an apparent ongoing attempt to justify a decision that, seemingly, has already been made. So I would only say this. Pope St. Clement (Pontificate 88-97 A.D.) spoke (wrote) thusly, with the authority of God Himself:
"For ye will give us great joy and gladness, if ye render obedience unto the things written by us through the Holy Spirit, and root out the unrighteous anger of your jealousy, according to the entreaty which we have made for peace and concord in this letter."
These words of St. Clement, of Pope St. Clement, assume that God Himself is speaking through St. Clement. And if God is speaking through Pope St. Clement, then He (God) is right, He's God. It's infallible. This is, therefore, a very early example of papal infallibility. Yet there is no evidence of any sort to give evidence to support any objections to St. Clement's speaking and writing in this authoritative way, infallibly through the Holy Spirit.
"For ye will give us great joy and gladness, if ye render obedience unto the things written by us through the Holy Spirit, and root out the unrighteous anger of your jealousy, according to the entreaty which we have made for peace and concord in this letter."
These words of St. Clement, of Pope St. Clement, assume that God Himself is speaking through St. Clement. And if God is speaking through Pope St. Clement, then He (God) is right, He's God. It's infallible. This is, therefore, a very early example of papal infallibility. Yet there is no evidence of any sort to give evidence to support any objections to St. Clement's speaking and writing in this authoritative way, infallibly through the Holy Spirit.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
