Did the Bishops at the 1st Vatican Council, who voted on Papal Infallibility, possess infallibility?

3/31/2014 | Laissez-Faire Capitalist

[ifinnegan]

Ok.

[quadrant]

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.

[editor-surveyor]

There is no “alternative,” it’s the Whore and her daughters.
.

[ex-snook]

"There is ZERO evidence of that in the Bible and in fact quite the opposite."

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.

[JAKraig]

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.

[Jim from C-Town]

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.

[SoothingDave]

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.”

[editor-surveyor]

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.

[Jim from C-Town]

If you do not believe in Papal Infallibility, than you are not Catholic. It is that simple. I advise that you join another religion or no religion at all. As for the Church it maintains that the Pope is infallible when speaking Ex Cathedra.

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.

[Jim from C-Town]

Than Choose no religion. That is OK too.

[Trapped Behind Enemy Lines]

Well, for us lay people, this could be a source of confusion.

When the Archbishop speaks, he speaks. It is with an air of authority. As with the Pope.

I don’t think questioning or disputing the positions of Church leadership makes you any less a Catholic than a Republican activist questioning the establishment GOP makes him any less of a Republican.

[Pan_Yan]

If so, how many other Apostles possessed infallibility in their actions that were later recorded in the Book of Acts?

[Jim from C-Town]

Disagreeing with Church hierarchy doesn’t make you less Catholic and is not wrong except in matters that are settled dogma. Those that have been spoken to Ex Cathedra. Among those are the Immaculate Conception of Mary. The Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ, the Trinity, that all elective abortions are intrinsically evil and yes, the infallibility of the Pope while speaking Ex Cathedra.

Lots of Catholic maters are confusing. Much of the Bible is confusing and often seems contradictory. That is why the guidance of the Holy Spirit through the Church is so important.

[quadrant]

I am Protestant to my DNA.
As I wrote before, I respect the RCC. I respect the Pope as head of the oldest and largest Christian church. As such, he is entitled to respect; he has the right to be heard; he has the right to have his views considered seriously and thoughtfully. I have written before that I feel fortunate to have lived during the lives of three great men: John XXIII, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI.
But however respectfully and thoughtfully, I consider their views - or the views of the leaders of my own church, for that matter - their views must stand or fall on their own their own truth and validity. I must be able reconcile their views with Scripture and with reason.
I left the Episcopal Church in large part because of its views on homosexuality generally and homosexual marriage and ordination specifically.
I am satisfied with the views of my current church but I will leave if necessary.

[lupie]

...there are more than 35,000 Christian Denominations

Oh?

Name them then if you are going to say that. Please provide a list.

[Mad Dawg]

Maybe you are reasoning a little over-precisely?

The COUNCIL itself claimed protection from error in the language, “It seems good to the Holy Spirit and to us.”

If one understands “infallibility” as “protection from error” maybe it is a tad less outrageous seeming. The individuals involved, including Peter himself, frequently err. But, we hold, under certain circumstances that WE, the Church as a whole, protected from their teaching erroneous things.

Note, please: I’m not trying to argue FOR the idea as much as I’m trying to clarify what it is.

One might also find peripheral support in Paul’s writings about the office and gift of “teaching.”

[SoothingDave]

But however respectfully and thoughtfully, I consider their views - or the views of the leaders of my own church, for that matter - their views must stand or fall on their own their own truth and validity. I must be able reconcile their views with Scripture and with reason.

Didn't you say in post 30 that:

I have no intention of educating myself on the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church, either now or ever.

How do you pass judgment on the "truth and validity" of an idea when you won't even learn what the terms used mean?

[quadrant]

I can only pass judgment or decide based on the information I have and my own limitations, mental and spiritual. I feel no need to go beyond that. Should the Holy Spirit lead me to reconsider this, I will do so gladly and thankfully. But I will tell you that I have received no such leading from the Holy Spirit.

[Mad Dawg]

but logic has very little to do with the Divine.

Εν αρχη ην ο λογος!

It's my pet theory that the disagreement about the nature of reason and the degree of its depravity is at the heart of the Catholic/Protestant difference.

Incidentally, when the Catholic Church uses words like "necessary" pertaining to God or his acts, it's a very conditional sort of necessary. God is ultimately free, even freedom itself. But what this means to me is that I prefer "fitting" to "necessary" to avoid confusion.

Also, because of the "formal" difficulties of theology -- all our concepts are rooted in created things, yet we attempt to talk about the Uncreated, so our language is obliged to be figurative -- sometimes the best approach to idea is what would seem to be poetic.

If you consider what we Catholics say of Mary, not in the sweeping doctrinal pronouncements but in more popular (and approved devotions, the "penumbra" around the big stuff becomes more understandable.

For example, the "ambo" (reading stand, lectern) at the Dominican House of Studies in DC, the place from which the Scriptures are read, has an image of a very pregnant Mary. Here the Word is brought forth.

Similarly, we call Mary "The Seat of Wisdom" and depict her with IHS on her lap --- the Wisdom of God deigned to use her as a thing to sit upon.

When I was still (at least nominally) a Protestant -- and in a Protestant Seminary), I realized that we could speak about Mary in this way:

"Full of grace," She was able to give complete assent to Love.
When she did so, Love entered deep within her, and grew in her.
At the proper time, she brought forth Love.
Having done so, she cared for Love and did what Love required.
She let Love go into the world, as was present at many of the works of Love, including at the triumph of "The Three Holy Days."

We are called to do no less, it seems to me.

[JAKraig]

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.

__________________________________________________________

I can’t agree that there was no need for the mother of Jesus to be immaculately conceived but not because she didn’t carry original sin, hardly. Remember that Jesus was half man and half God. He absolutely needed the carnal half, the human half to be able to appreciate the weight of sin and overcome sin. Because He was human and overcame sin He was able to be punished, or accept the punishment for the rest of mankind and keep us from having to receive it. Because He was also God He was able on His own to overcome death. When we agree to accept His punishment for us then we too will be free of Adams curse of death.

While this may be an oversimplification it is the cornerstone of Christian faith. The Immaculate conception is not important because it brings Christ into the world without sin, it is important because His Father is The Father and because His mother is mortal.