Skip to comments.Did the Bishops at the 1st Vatican Council, who voted on Papal Infallibility, possess infallibility?
Posted on 03/31/2014 7:35:15 AM PDT by Laissez-faire capitalist
A.) When the vote was taken on July 1870, at the First Vatican Council, with 433 votes in favour (placet) and only 2 against (non placet) against defining as dogma the infallibility of the pope when speaking ex cathedra, did those Bishops possess infallibility when (or at least only when) voting? Did any of them keep this infallibility (did it remain with all of them or any of them) after they left and returned home? Did any of these Bishops possess any infallibility at anytime before the vote was cast?
B.) Was Mary's (the Mother of Jesus) mother immaculately conceived as Mary was? Was Mary's grandmother immaculately conceived, too? If so, was there near-infinite regression of these immaculate conceptions? If so, how far back did these immaculate conceptions go? If they did not go back farther than two, why were only two and not say three or four immaculate conceptions needed?
C.) When the Apostle Paul confronted Peter (when Peter was being hypocritical concerning his eating with Jews and Gentiles), did the Apostle Paul possess infallibility when stating that Gentiles did NOT have to be circumcised as a requisite for being a Christian? If so, how many other Apostles possessed infallibility in their actions that were later recorded in the Book of Acts?
D.) During the time of the Western Great Schism of 1378, if papal infallibility was in existence at that time (and only later just codified), how could any person who was not one of the two Popes infallibly know (if they did not possess any measure of infallibility) which POpe was legitimate until this was later worked out? What about that period of time? Were people left "twisting in the wind?"
From Wikipedia [your mileage may vary - link below in first post]:
"The doctrine of Papal Infallibility was not new and had been used by Pope Pius in defining as dogma, in 1854, the Immaculate Conception of Mary the Mother of Jesus.  However, the proposal to define papal infallibility itself as dogma met with resistance, not because of doubts about the substance of the proposed definition, but because some considered it inopportune to take that step at that time. 
There was stronger opposition to the draft constitution on the nature of the church, which at first did not include the question of papal infallibility,  but the majority part in the Council, whose position on this matter was much stronger,  brought it forward. It was decided to postpone discussion of everything in the draft except infallibility.  On 13 July, 1870, the section on infallibility was voted on: 451 voted simply in favor (placet), 88 against (non placet), and 62 in favor but on condition of some amendment (placet iuxta modum).  This made evident what the final outcome would be, and some 60 members of the opposition left Rome so as not to be associated with approval of the document. The final vote, with a choice only between placet and non placet, was taken on 18 July 1870, with 4333 votes in favour and only 2 against defining as a dogma the infallibility of the pope when speaking ex cathedra. 
2. Encyclopaedia Brittanica, First Vatican Council
5. Encyclopaedia Brittanica, Pius IX
What’s the point?
Obviously no human, save the Word Made Flesh, is infallible.
And what’s the second one about? The infinite regress idea is funny, but how does it fit in with the fallible infallibility theme?
I hardly think popes are infallible. They are human just like the rest of us mere mortals and therefore subject to sin and error. Look at the current pope’s most recent on economics as proof that popes are not always right.
The idea that Mary herself was conceived of an immaculate conception is simply absurd and something made up out of whole cloth. There is no documenation for this.
Even more bizarre is the claim that Mary was ALWAYS a virgin. She was married to Joseph and she and Joseph had other children including James which is mentioned in the Bible.
Churches have the right to develop their own institutions,traditions, rules, and rituals. But NO church as the right to rewrite history or to rewrite the Bible.
Read right under “Papal Infallibility”
Pope Pius, in 1854, used the doctrine of papal infallibility to define as dogma the Immaculate Conception of Mary...
It was part of the Wiki article, and so I thought I would include it as a question -— because Pope Pius (in 1854) used the doctrine of papal infallibility to define as dogma the Immaculate Conception of Mary.
I have great respect for the Roman Catholic Church; but the notion that (very) fallible humans could decide that another human (however saintly his character, however elevated his position) was infallible when speaking on all subjects or any subject strikes me as bizarre.
And the notion that any person who is wholly human - as opposed to human and divine - was conceived immaculately is truly bizarre.
For question a, see Acts 15. Infallibility is not said to inhere in persons. It is attached, rather to certain sorts of acts in certain situations. Or that’s a way of looking at it.
If you want to tussle, I’m no longer interested. But the Catechism is online, and a great many notions are usefully (if nio persuasively — which is not the goal of the Catechism) explained. So if getting a notion of what we teach is your goal, I’d start there.
Two what? Immaculate conceptions?
You need to study a little harder before trying to come up with "gotchas."
What do you think "conceived immaculately" means?
Do you believe in the Fall of Adam and Eve?
The infallibility is very limited. It is only when they are speaking, always written first, ex cathedra. laterally ‘from the chair’ as in the chair of St. Peter. They do so very rarely.
A good article from Catholic Answers may help you to understand what Papal Infallibility is and why it is so important.
So, there was never a “Eullepsis tes hagias kia theoprometoros Annas”? The Conception of Saint Anne, the ancestress of God” from the 4th century onward?
If God can do anything, can he make a rock that’s even too heavy for him to lift?
Oh....I see...when he is sitting in the chair he is infallible....the rest of the time he is full of....like the current Pope.
They didn’t even ‘possess’ the Holy Spirit.
They were utterly lost pagans creating their pontifus maximus.
Did the Apostle Paul say that sin entered the world through Adam or Eve - or both?
EXPLAINING THE IDEA OF INFALLIBILITY [Catholic Caucus]
Papal Infallibility: A Symbolic, Yet Problematic, Term
Essays for Lent: Papal Infallibility
Radio Replies Second Volume - Infallibility
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: The Charism of Infallibility: The Magisterium
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: The Charism of Truth Handling: Infallibility
Radio Replies First Volume - Infallibility
Docility (on Catholic dogma and infallibility)
Beginning Catholic: Infallibility: Keeping the Faith [Ecumenical]
Papal Infallibility [Ecumenical]
Peter & Succession (Understanding the Church Today)
Pope: may all recognize true meaning of Peters primacy
THE PRIMACY OF THE SUCCESSOR OF PETER IN THE MYSTERY OF THE CHURCH
Pope St. Leo the Great and the Petrine Primacy
The Epiphany of the Roman Primacy
THE PRIMACY OF THE SUCCESSOR OF PETER IN THE MYSTERY OF THE CHURCH [Ratzinger]
Catholic Answers, EWTN and New Advent.org are the best sources...
>> “The Pope is only infallible on questions of FAITH and MORALS” <<
Popes know nothing of Faith, nor morals, or they wouldn’t be popes.
“You are Peter and on this Rock, I will build my Church.”
It’s all about the Biblical Rock of Christ, and as explained by others, infallibility is quite a limited concept. FWIW, the deeper things of God are always easy to skew, misrepresent or misinterpret.
BTW, Wikipedia is good pretty much for the LINKS it provides.
And Encyclopedia Brittanica is quite an excellent source -—that wiki provided...
Adam was created from the dust of the earth; Eve from his rib. Neither were “conceived.”
To me - and I admit to being less than an expert - to be conceived immaculately means conception without human impregnation (which is to be conceived without Original Sin) which I accept readily in the case of Jesus but not His mother.
What are you talking about?
It would be easier if you simply said which two people you think were conceived immaculately and what you think that means.
Hint: There is only one person that the Catholic Church teaches that was the product of an immaculate conception.
Why would anyone want a pagan title, pagan office (complete with pagan rites) that Roman Emperors possessed for quite a long time?
Kind of like taking an altar to Baal and consecrating it to Yahweh. I don’t think that Elijah would approve...
It is easier to believe that all humans are born free of sin than to believe in original sin of mankind. After all what is more innocent than a newborn. So in reality it is a matter of faith that we are all born into sin as opposed to choosing it.
The idea of the Immaculate Conception is that the Christ would not be born through woman that carried original sin. Since God decided to burden all mankind with original sin, he has every right to exempt whomever he desires from the stain of that original sin.
Also the idea is that the Pope is not infallible in all regards, only in the regards of speaking on maters of Faith and Morals. It is believed that it is not he the Pope or even the Church talking when the Pope speaks Ex Cathedra, it is the Holly Spirit speaking through the Pope. The Pope is called the Vicar of Christ because he is the “Earthly representative of God or Christ” . Yet, he is till only a man. Often a very human man with very real short comings and sometimes very many sins.
Now, was Adam created immaculately or not?
I see. You have a completely incorrect understanding of the term as defined by the Catholic Church.
There is no point in discussing this until you educate yourself about the terms in use.
Thats funny, at least in the late 2nd century AD, 4 out of the 5 major centers of Christendom (Constantinople, Jerusalem, Antioch and Alexandria) did NOT agree with the primacy of the Bishop of Rome.
And yes, I agree with you.
Rome did skew, misinterpret and misrepresent the deeper things of God - but your Ad Hominem attack against me is duly noted - a personal attack that was meant to take this away from discussion and to make it personal.
Since sin enetered the world through Adam, God did not need Joseph physically in His plan for the redemption of man.
Sin did not enter the world through Eve, as sin is passed on through the loins of men, not women, thus there was no need for Mary the mother of Jesus to be immaculately conceived.
No he is never sitting in the chair when he speaks Ex Cathedra. That is simply a phrase denoting the power of the Papacy. As it comes directly from the Seat of Peter. The Holly See,The Eternal Church. Direct from God as the Holy Spirit speaking through the Pope.
I have no interest in debating anyone about the authenticity of Church teachings. They are what they are.
If you desire to bash the Church do so. I don’t have to play along. If you desire an education and understanding Please, feel free to ask others or do a little research. The Church is certainly well represented on the Inter-Webs and a simple Google question will result in many millions of returns.
If you desire not to follow the Church teachings but want to still call yourself a Christian there are more than 35,000 Christian Denominations to choose from.
I just read it and I laughed.
“maintaining that from the moment when she was conceived in the womb, the Blessed Virgin Mary was kept free of original sin”
There is ZERO evidence of that in the Bible and in fact quite the opposite.
That’s your decision. Just know that words are used that do not mean what you think they mean.
Was Adam created immaculately or not?
Where is this “sin is found in the sperm” idea found in the Bible anyway?
I am a loyal and faithful Catholic. But that doesn’t mean I blindly go along with EVERYTHING uttered by the leadership. Here in the L.A. Archdiocese, I sharply disagree with our current Archbishop’s position on illegal immigration, among some other issues.
Take your bigotry out on someone else. I am only answering a question. I have no desire to debate Catholic bashing Bigots as it would be a never ending battle.
Look to one of the many Schismatic churches if you desire an alternative. There have been well over 35,000 alternative Protestant religions.
So James, the leader of the Jerusalem Council, the FIRST center for Christendom before Antioch, possessed infallibility when he uttered his final pronouncement after all of those present finished conferring?
Laugh all you want, just don’t be ignorant.
Do please consult the catechism. Immaculate conception, as we feelthy papists use the term, has nothing to do with sexual intercourse. Wity respect to biology, Mary was conceived in the normal manner.
There’s plenty to argue about, if arguing is the goal. But the coversation will go better if it’s about a position we actually maintain.
How do you know that Christ - who was wholly human and wholly divine - could not be born of a woman who carried original sin? Such a fact may not be “logical”, but logic has very little to do with the Divine.
If God can create the universe, can give life to the Earth, can part the Red Sea, can raise the dead, then He can overcome that small bit of “ill-logic.” He can “square that circle” quite easily.
Be very careful about how easily you accept human explanations about God’s decisions.
“It is believed” that when the Pope speaks Ex Cathedra, then he is infallible; but I do not believe it.
The Pope may be called the Vicar of Christ, but that does not make it so.
And I think Christ has many earthly representatives.
There is no “alternative,” it’s the Whore and her daughters.
So? Everything that is true is not in the Bible. The Holy Spirit did not go out of business when the Bible was canonized by the Catholic Church. If God wanted his Son to be born of a sinning woman, there were plenty to pick from.
I am not a roman Catholic.
I have only the greatest respect for the Roman Catholic believers.
Peter is considered the first Pope. Peter was given the keys of the kingdom, what he bound on earth was also bound in Heaven. If you believe this and if you believer that Popes after Peter were inheritors of those same keys then you must also believe that Popes are infallible. They would be infallible because the decisions they make are honored in Heaven.
If you are not a Roman Catholic then it doesn’t make any difference. I say that understanding that mainstream “Protestant” religions claim a part of the same Apostolic faith. If you are a Protestant I can see no way to dismiss the theology of Papal infallibility. If you don’t accept it then find a church you can believe in. Don’t make fun of people who are trying to live close to The Lord.
If the administrators of the Holy Roman Catholic Church are wrong, if they have assumed authority they do not have then God will sort it out later, it is not my job to do so.
I pray for the Pope. I do not pray for him because I believe he is an authorized inheritor of the keys of Peter but because he is at the head of a large group of believers, I do not want him to lead them astray, I hope he leads people to Christ.
I hope there are many ways to Christ and that all the different churches will all lead people to Christ.
Perhaps there is only one church that is the “true” church like nearly all churches claim they are but I hope that all churches will bring the rest of us to that true church with The Lord at the head of it.
We may all not agree on some things but let us all agree that The Lord is Risen and is Lord, that would be a good start.
As do I. The Bishop of LA is hardly speaking Ex Cathedra as he is unable to do so. Also there are many instances when the Pope is wrong. Only when he speaks Ex Cathedra is he considered infallible. Beyond that he is only a philosopher.
As for disagreeing with Bishops it is a long held belief that the streets of hell are paved with the skulls of Bishops, as many have lead a vast number of people astray.
Remember, too, that the Church can only define principles. The real world application of those principles is not a matter of infallible judgment.
We can be taught that we must have compassion for the poor.
We can not be taught that we must, therefore favor one set of public policy positions (e.g. increased food stamps or extended unemployment) over some other.
It is the goals, not the means that are truly “Catholic.”
There is only one church, but it is not a human corporation, and it has no human leaders.
Pope is a pagan office, respected by lost men.
It really is that simple. Either believe and accept, or leave and join another Church. What no one needs is another Cafeteria Catholic deciding what is correct and what isn't. That is the idea of Protestantism.
There are some Protestant churches that have decided that Homosexual activity is Christian and not at all sinful. Most even teach that the interruption of conception, contraception,is not sinful even abortion are OK for some ‘Christian’ churches.
There are many churches to choose from. No one is saying that you have to be Catholic.
Than Choose no religion. That is OK too.