DAFFYNITIONARY
STRIKES AGAIN!
LOL!
Posted on 05/22/2011 10:02:42 AM PDT by DaveMSmith
This may be of interest:
No Catholic can say he knows how many times (total) a Pope or the Magisterium has spoken infallibly, as no infallible list of all such exists, nor can he say he infallibly understands what they declare.
[RC apologist Scott] Hahn has proposed a two-statement canon of ex cathedra papal statements. But apologist Tim Staples says there are at least four, and likely very many more. In his audio tape series, “All Generations Shall Call Me Blessed,” he berated those who state that popes have only spoken infallibly on two occasions. Staples mentioned the two ex cathedra statements to which Hahn refers, and then adds at least two more, referring first to pope Boniface VIII’s statement Unam Sanctam (1302), and second, to St. Leo’s letter to Flavian* which was examined and approved by the Council of Chalcedon in 451:
As evidence that the dilemma is not limited merely to a few teachings, the Roman Catholic is invited to consider the much longer list compiled by Roman Catholic priest Leslie Rumble in his book, That Catholic Church. In this book he provides his opinion that there have been 18 ex cathedra papal statements throughout Roman Catholic history. Not only does Rumble’s list contain considerably more statements than Hahn’s or Staples’, it also contains two caveats indicating that the degree of certainty of the reliability of this (or any) list is in doubted. - http://www.cwrc-rz.org/thlarchive/thla-024.php
Bishop Vincent Gasser, spokesman for the deputation “de fide” (the committee of Conciliar Fathers [in Vatican 1], charged with drafting the solemn definition [on Papal infalliblity]), and who is quoted no less than four times in the official footnotes to “Lumen Gentium” 25, which treats of infallibility, delivered a four-hour speech explaining and defending the draft which was submitted to the assembled Fathers for their vote.
Gasser stated:
“Already thousands and thousands of dogmatic judgments have gone forth from the apostolic See; by his audience— that there had already been “thousands and thousands” of infallible definitions issued by the Roman See.” http://www.orthodoxanswers.org/papalinfallibility.pdf
That's the beauty of the internet, isn't it, given enough time you can always find an "expert" who agrees with you. Unlike those who profess to speak for all of Protestantism, I don't claim to speak for all who claim to be Catholic. I only state the teachings of the Church to rectify the misstatements and lies represented as Catholic teaching.
Since you "give your sources" please cite the Catholic source that approved the "get out of purgatory" payments. Take your time, the internet is an awfully big place.
Thank you for blundering into such a good a teaching opportunity.
Citing the text does not provide an interpretation. Again, exactly how do you know your interpretation is right and the Catholic interpretation is wrong? What is your authority for your understanding, Mrs. Johnson's 3rd grade reading class?
Perhaps parsing this will make it easier for you. What do you interpret "graven" to mean and what is a "Graven Image"?
That is absolutely untrue. The Popes, collectively, have only ever issued two ex cathedra statements. That is verifiable.
Great job.
Holler if you want some gifs for illustration!
“That is absolutely untrue. The Popes, collectively, have only ever issued two ex cathedra statements. That is verifiable.”
The Code of Canon Law provides that "No doctrine is understood to be infallibly defined unless it is clearly established as such" (CIC 749 § 3), and i do not dispute that at least two (MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS; Ineffabilis Deus) are accepted as being such, but as the disputes show, this is still a matter of some interpretation, as there is no infallible canon of all infallible decrees, and which would detail which certain sections of promulgations are.
Are you infallibly certain that only 2 exist, and that your understanding of them is infallible, including whether scriptures being invoked in support are infallible interpretations? In any case, you will then have to argue with your own apologists and other Roman sources over the number of infallible definitions.
In addition to statements in post 492 as regards this,
Cardinals Ratzinger (the later Pope Benedict XVI) and Bertone, the prefect and secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, listed a number of instances of infallible pronouncements by popes and by ecumenical councils, but explicitly stated (at no. 11) that this was not meant to be a complete list. - http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFADTU.HTM
Catholic theologian and church historian Klaus Schatz made a thorough study, published in 1985, that identified the following list of ex cathedra documents (Creative Fidelity: Weighing and Interpreting Documents of the Magisterium, by Francis A. Sullivan, chapter 6):
* "Tome to Flavian", Pope Leo I, 449, on the two natures in Christ, received by the Council of Chalcedon;
* Letter of Pope Agatho, 680, on the two wills of Christ, received by the Third Council of Constantinople;
* Benedictus Deus, Pope Benedict XII, 1336, on the beatific vision of the just prior to final judgment;
* C u m occasione, Pope Innocent X, 1653, condemning five propositions of Jansen as heretical;
* Auctorem fidei, Pope Pius VI, 1794, condemning seven Jansenist propositions of the Synod of Pistoia as heretical;
* Ineffabilis Deus, Pope Pius IX, 1854, defining the immaculate conception; and
* Munificentissimus Deus, Pope Pius XII, 1950, defining the assumption of Mary.
Roman Catholic apologist Jimmy Akin states that Papal infallibility has been exercised far more than two times, and that papal canonizations of saints are infallible, due to the pope stating: "we declare and define that Blessed N., is a saint" http://www.jimmyakin.org/2004/06/two_instances_o.html
RC apologist Phil Vaz holds that the Pope infallibly condemned abortion in the encyclical Evangelium Vitae
Also of some debate is Casti Connubii and Humanae Vitae are infallible, and Unam Sanctum.
"We have infallible statements from popes all the way back. Pope Boniface VIII made an infallible statement in the 13th century concerning papal authority or papal primacy. In the year 451 at the Council of Chalcedon, Pope Leo I made an infallible declaration that was recognized as such by council Fathers concerning the hypostatic union of Christ." — Staples, Tim, "All Generations Shall Call Me Blessed," tape 2 of 6, side 1, http://www.lazyboysreststop.com/apol75.htm
The allowance of interpretation is real and necessary in cases of problematic statements by certain popes.
There are also disputes about which ecumenical conciliar definitions are infallible, or about how binding papal encyclicals are.
The Catholic church may claim that it has spoken infallibly x number of times, but nobody knows for sure but God.
And even if they have spoken infallibly, the same problem arises in interpreting their *infallible* declarations as interpreting infallible Scripture. That is, that the person hearing or reading it isn’t interpreting it infallibly, so nothing is gained by adding another layer of infallibility.
At that point, you might as well stick to just Scripture and not any any other layers of claimed infallibility, which can’t be proved anyway. Their say so that it’s an infallible declaration is just their opinion.
I have been told that there may be as many as seven instances of a papal ex cathedra infallible statement. I say "may be", because it seems no Catholic authority can agree on which pronouncements are infallible and which are not. When pressed for details, I was directed to a Wikipedia article on the subject, sadly. I guess Catholics consider Wikipedia to be canonical on the subject.
So is the Pope above criticism? Is he infallible?The short answer is "he's almost never infallible."
The longer answer is "he's only infallible when speaking ex cathedra and when speaking of doctrine specifically [government, politics and economics don't qualify as doctrine]. Only the Magisterium, when viewed as a whole over time, is held to be 100% infallible."
The detailed answer is that 99.9% of all papal statements aren't made ex cathedra. The possibility (and opportunity) always exists that the Pope will speak in error doctrinally, if he's not speaking ex cathedra - and there have only been a handful of ex cathedra statements made in the entire history of the Catholic Church (remembering that infallible teachings must by definition be on dogma and doctrine). Thus, the possibility that any pope will speak in error regarding political and economic issues is [statistically speaking] a rock solid 100%, according to the doctrine of papal infallibility. There's no reason to say that Pope Benedict XVI can't be advocating socialism, and I think the recent is pretty clear that even if he's not outright promoting it, he's certainly in support of it. I'm afraid that all too many Catholics push their admiration of the Pope into idol worship, believing that the Pope speaks impeccably in all matters. As one FReeper explained it to me years ago, "papal impeccability is not a Catholic dogma."
But in the end, the final answer to the question of "So is the Pope above criticism? Is he infallible?" is "Shut up and kiss the ring." No one is permitted to question the Vicar of Christ's guidance. If he says that
- food and the access to water are a universal right of all humans,as he did in his recent encyclical Caritas in veritate, you'll be expected to step aside and let the centralists and socialists take over. Your eternal salvation is in jeopardy if you don't go along with whatever he says, whenever he says it.
- abandoning mechanisms of wealth redistribution will hinder the achievement of lasting development
- technologically advanced societies can and must lower their domestic energy consumption
- labor unions should expand their influence over those outside their membership, and beyond national boundaries,
- a reform of the United Nations Organization is necessary, likewise a reform of economic institutions and international finance, so that the concept of the "family of nations" can acquire real teeth.-- Alex Murphy, October 31, 2009
INDEED.
- food and the access to water are a universal right of all humans,as he did in his recent encyclical Caritas in veritate, you'll be expected to step aside and let the centralists and socialists take over. Your eternal salvation is in jeopardy if you don't go along with whatever he says, whenever he says it.
- abandoning mechanisms of wealth redistribution will hinder the achievement of lasting development
- technologically advanced societies can and must lower their domestic energy consumption
- labor unions should expand their influence over those outside their membership, and beyond national boundaries,
- a reform of the United Nations Organization is necessary, likewise a reform of economic institutions and international finance, so that the concept of the "family of nations" can acquire real teeth.
-- Alex Murphy, October 31, 2009
===================================================
One thing I am infallibly certain is that your knowledge of Catholic doctrine is incomplete and highly flawed.
Popes, as members of the Episcopacy of the Church, participate in the infallible declarations of the Magisterium, but there have only been two ex cathedra statements by Popes.
If you are serious about educating yourself on Catholic doctrines I would advise you to stay away from the internet and seek out a priest or enroll in theology classes at a Catholic college or university. I can't think of any priest who would reject a sincere inquiry or deny admittance into an educational program even on the conditions that the exercise is not for the purposes of conversion.
Your tendency is to reject substantiation and substitute your opinion instead. If it is I who has showed more ignorance of Catholic doctrine than you, who is sure of what prominent RC apologists and scholars such as i have quoted in my posts are not, then it must be shared by them. When you find the infallible list of all infallible statements then tell them. They will appreciate it.
So now the issue of the filique is ho-hum? Do you have an "official" Church comment that states this?
I will say the more I mulled over your comment the more perplex I became. (Yes, I do meditate on your words while cutting the grass.) I hear a great deal about the "authority" of the church, and yet you chided a priest for not knowing the Church's stance on the filique. In fact you are saying that the priest writing is completely wrong and I should know better.
What you are essentially saying is that priest does not know what is the correct doctrine of the Orthodox Church and, presumably, you do. It is possible that some rogue priest is out there spreading all sorts of things that are contrary to the Church. This is what you're saying. But then again, aren't you suppose to submit yourself to the authority of the Church which means submitting yourself to this priest and his teaching?
I hear the Catholics and Orthodox complain that Protestants interpret their own writings and have no authority to submit to. Yet this is precisely what you are doing. There isn't really any different. You are saying this priest is wrong and ignore his article as "predestrian". This is your interpretation. Not any different then us Protestants.
You have danced all around the issue, and have blown a lot of smoke about the superiority of your interpretations, but you have never answered the core question as to the authority of your interpretations.
If you are contending that you have the ability or gift to infallibly interpret Scripture then say so. If you don't, simply admit it.
Actually the beauty of the Internet is that I can go out onto various Church websites and look at the explanation of how they arrive at their doctrine. My quotes are almost exclusively from the Church sites such as New Advent. I find most Catholics simply do not understand their own doctrine.
Since you "give your sources" please cite the Catholic source that approved the "get out of purgatory" payments.
This isn't hard. For my source I'll use, in part, the Catholic's Council of Trent:
Whereas the power of conferring Indulgences was granted by Christ to the Church; and she has, even in the most ancient times, used the said power, delivered unto her of God; the sacred holy Synod teaches, and enjoins, that the use of Indulgences, for the Christian people most salutary, and approved of [Page 278] by the authority of sacred Councils, is to be retained in the Church; and It condemns with anathema those who either assert, that they are useless; or who deny that there is in the Church the power of granting them. In granting them, however, It desires that, in accordance with the ancient and approved custom in the Church, moderation be observed; lest, by excessive facility, ecclesastical discipline be enervated. And being desirous that the abuses which have crept therein, and by occasion of which this honourable name of Indulgences is blasphemed by heretics, be amended and corrected, It ordains generally by this decree, that all evil gains for the obtaining thereof,--whence a most prolific cause of abuses amongst the Christian people has been derived,--be wholly abolished.
Take your time, the internet is an awfully big place.
Yes. But Goggle sure saves time.
Does that include Peter?
Does that include Peter?
Oops, sorry for the double post. Peter made me do it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.