|
Infallibility
|
Posted on 05/16/2012 11:39:02 AM PDT by Salvation
Infallibility
Christ gave to Simon Peter and his successors, the Keys to the Kingdom and the power of binding and loosing. To the Popes was given the authority to teach. To them, in this regard, was given the charism of infallibility. "Infallibility" is not "impeccability" -- the inability to sin. Catholics do not believe that Popes are sinless and never err. Infallibility is simply a gift that is expressed in very specific ways, limited by Sacred Deposit of Faith -- Tradition, Scripture, and the unanimous writings of the early Fathers. As put by Vatican I:
For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by His revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by His assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or Deposit of Faith transmitted by the Apostles.
Or, as put even more bluntly by Pope Pius XII in Mystici Coporis Christi:
[Nor] may anyone argue that the primacy of jurisdiction established in the Church gives such a Mystical Body two heads. For Peter in virtue of his Primacy is only Christ's Vicar; so that there is only one chief Head of this Body, namely Christ, who never ceases Himself to guide the Church invisible, though at the same time He rules it visibly, through Church rested not on Him alone, but on Peter too, its visible foundation stone.
The Pope may explain doctrines more fully, he may go more deeply into them, he can extrapolate from moral principles to shed light on new situations that arise, but he cannot contradict what has been handed down by Christ and the Apostles and still claim infallibility for that teaching.
Protestants believe the first Pope possessed the charism of infallibility.
Now, they might not believe that Peter was the first Pope (which he was), but they believe that his Epistles are infallible. They also believe that Luke, Matthew, Mark, Paul, Jude and John wrote infallibly. They believe that Moses "was infallible," too. And Hosea, Micah, Nehemiah, Isaiah, David, Solomon, Zechariah -- any Patriarch, Prophet, Apostle, or Evangelist who wrote a Bibilical Book is deemed by Protestants to be infallible.
But somehow they see things as having changed, and the idea of the gift of infallibility being given to man is laughed off as "Popish superstition" at best, and as "Romish sacrilege" at worst.
Why they believe this, when since Israel's origins God has always provided authoritative leaders, I don't know. From Abraham to Jacob to Moses to David to Solomon, et. al., throughout the thousands and thousands of years of Israel's existence, God gave Israel earthly authority. But Protestants see this authority as having abruptly ended when the Old Testament Covenant was fulfilled and Israel's King of Kings took on flesh.
Malachi 2-7
For the priest's lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth: for he is the messenger of the Lord of hosts.
Matthew 23:2-3
The scribes and Pharisees sit on Moses' seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice.
Did that earthly authorty pass away? If not, where did that authority pass on to?
Isaiah 22:21-23
And I will clothe him with thy robe, and strengthen him with thy girdle, and I will commit thy government into his hand: and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open. And I will fasten him as a nail in a sure place; and he shall be for a glorious throne to his father's house.
Matthew 16:18-19
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
The authority passed to Peter and to the priests of the New Covenant.
"But we don't believe that Moses and Jacob and David were perfect! Look at David -- he committed adultery! Just because they wrote infallible books doesn't mean they were perfect!"
Precisely. And Catholics don't believe that Popes are perfect and can't sin or that every word a Pope mutters is infallible. When David whored around, he sinned. When Solomon prayed to pagan gods, he sinned. When Peter denied Christ three times, he sinned. When Pope John Paul II kissed the Koran or failed to deal with heretic, Modernist Bishops and homosexualist priests, he sinned. Impeccability is not a part of the deal -- but all of these sinners had/have the charism of infallibility.
The Authentic (i.e. "authoritative") Magisterium of the Church -- i.e., the teaching office of the Church exercised by proper authority -- has different levels of infallibility:
Extraordinary Infallible Magisterium ("Solemn Magisterium"): this is exercised when the Pope, as supreme pastor of the entire Church, speaks ex cathedra (from the Chair of Peter) and solemnly defines a dogma concerning faith and morals to be held by the entire Church, or when a Dogmatic Council convened and endorsed by a Pope formally defines a matter of faith and morals to be held by the entire Church. This is a very rarely excercised assertion of authority (only a few times in the past few hundred years). When the Pope teaches using his extraordinary infallible Magisterium, or when a Council dogmatically defines something and the Pope endorses that defintion, Catholics must believe what is taught de fide, as an article of faith.
Ordinary Infallible Magisterium ("Constant Magisterium" or "Universal Magisterium"): this is exercised when the Pope, Council, Bishop, priest or any authorized teacher teaches in accordance with Tradition, the Sacred Deposit of Faith, and what has been always accepted and taught by the Church in the past
Merely Authentic Ordinary Magisterium: any teaching by Pope, Bishop, priest, or any authorized teacher, that does not fall into the above two levels of infallibility is, quite simply, fallible, even though it may be part of the Authentic Magisterium (that is, it is "authorized" teaching). Teaching at this level is owed obedience -- as long as obeying does not harm the Faith, lead to sin or the loss of souls, does not contradict the Faith, etc. If what is being taught contradicts the Faith, it not only can be resisted, it must be resisted.
In addition to Magisterium, the Pope can, of course, simply act as a private person and offer his personal opinions on anything from current events to sports to food to movies. These may be of interest to us Catholics, who tend to sensibly love -- or at least respect the office of -- the Holy Father, but they are not "Church teaching" in any way. In the same way, a Council may be called that is pastoral and not dogmatic in nature (such as Vatican II).
Now, some Catholics forget the second level of the Magisterium, the "Ordinary Infallible Magisterium." They forget the Sacred Deposit of Faith, the unanimous agreement of the early Christian Fathers, and Sacred Tradition. These "Catholics" are the "liberal Catholics" or "modernist Catholics" you hear so much from in the media. They are the ones who root for the ordination of women, the eradication of the Christian view of homosexuality, etc. These are the well-organized, well-funded loudmouth "Catholics" who eat away at the Church's teachings and have become well-entrenched in various dioceses.
Another type of Catholic forgets about that third level of teaching that is not infallible at all. Any time the Pope teaches, he must be heard, his authority given respect, and the teaching given the benefit of the doubt because it comes from the Vicar of Christ. But if it contradicts prior infallible Magisterium, it is not infallible -- and it must not be obeyed if it proves harmful to the faith. Catholics who forget this level of Magisterium try very hard to be "orthodox" by being obedient, but they often have a false sense of obedience -- an obedience that sometimes borders on a pre-conscious papolatry ("pope worship"), though, of course, they know better and know that "worshipping the Pope" would be a terrible sin. They usually have a very healthy sensus catholicus, a desire for traditional Catholicism, and a virtuous patience, but they simply attribute to the Pope authority he does not have and they truly need to come to a better understanding of what the Magisterium is. These Catholics are often called "neo-conservatives," "conservatives," or "neo-Catholics" (they often think of and refer to themselves as "traditional Catholics" though they are not). You will see these otherwise wonderful Catholics tying themselves into knots trying to defend some of the novelties that followed Vatican II, or sweating bullets making excuses for some of the Holy Father's more scandalous actions (e.g., "ecumenical" services that include praying with Animists, Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, Protestants; allowing altar girls and "Extraordinary Eucharistic Ministers", etc.), failures to act (e.g., lack of discipline given to Bishops), and opinions (e.g., support for the anti-subsidiarity, anti-life, anti-Christ United Nations).
Their desire to protect the Holy Father is understandable -- and laudable! -- especially since the papacy has been attacked so unfairly since the Protestant Rebellion and the ensuing secular revolution, most often with outrageous lies. But these Catholics have to wake up, study a bit, and defend true Catholic teaching as it has been known for 2,000 years.
If it has always been taught by the Church as a matter of faith or morals, it is infallible. If it is a solemn definition, it is infallible.
Ex., you are reading two Encyclicals. The first Encyclical reads:
Venerable Brethren, the red dogs runs at night. The cow jumped over the Moon. Jesus Christ is God. Little Jack Horner sat in a corner. Women may not be ordained to the priesthood.
In this document, the only parts which would be infallible would be the lines "Jesus Christ is God" and "women may not be ordained to the priesthood" because these have always been taught. This is teaching at the level of the Universal Magisterium, which is infallible.
The second Encyclical reads:
By the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that X, Y, Z. Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith. And, by the way, the red dog runs at night.
Notice the explicit "we define" here? Notice that it is addressed to "anyone," not just to members of the Latin Church or of the Eastern Churches, etc.? Notice the penalty in place for non-acceptance of what is being said (if you don't believe this, you have fallen away from the Catholic Faith)? By these marks, you can know that infallible teaching is being expressed.
In this document, X, Y, and Z are infallible, but not "the red dog runs at night." This is teaching at the level of the Extraordinary (or Solemn) Magisterium, which is also infallible and is to be accepted "de fide." (Note: Protestants and uneducated Catholics who ask blankly, "Is Enclyclical X infallible?" need to recognize that a 100-page Encyclical may be written that is not infallible in any way, or has 10 paragraphs that are infallible, or 1 sentence that is infallible, etc.). This sort of exercise of the Solemn Magisterium is very rare, but very necessary when clarity is needed over a teaching that has always been taught, but whose details haven't been strictly defined.
All other teachings are owed obedience as long as they do not lead to a loss of Faith, harm the Church, impede the salvation of souls, lead to an evil, etc.
Summary:
Always been taught and believed: infallible
Solemnly defined by Pope or Council: infallible
Other teachings: fallible, but owed religious assent unless they prove harmful, lead to sin, etc.
In addition to the above authoritative excercises of the Magisterium is "ecclesiastical tradition." Ecclesiastical tradition is the body of disciplines and practices which Christ's Church has ordained to be the manner in which our Faith is lived out and expressed. To quote Brother Alexis Bugnolo, writing in Seattle Catholic:
Ecclesiastical Tradition is the term used by the Second Ecumenical Council of Nicaea, in 787 A.D., to speak of those pious customs of the Churches founded by the Apostles, which in some manner correctly apply the Catholic Religion to concrete practice over many generations. It does this most importantly in its 4th Anathema:
"If anyone despises or rejects any written or unwritten ecclesiastical tradition, anathema sit."Some examples cited by this council of ecclesiastical tradition are the veneration of the symbol of the Cross, icons, and statues. As an unwritten practice, kneeling for Communion is an ecclesiastical tradition.
The details of ecclesiastical tradition (small "T") are not a matter of dogma per se, but they are the inerrant manner in which dogma and doctrine are taught, learned, expressed, and lived. The details of ecclesiastical tradition may develop; they are not written in stone. But they may develop only slowly, "organically," in terms of quantity or quality (not substance), and in such a manner that is consistent with Natural Law and which better expresses the Faith (or at least doesn't harm the Faith, such as the novel practices since Vatican II do). Many of the problems in the Church since the Second Vatican Council stem from the almost complete eradication or revolutionizing of ecclesiastical tradition, in spite of the Second Council of Nicaea's anathema against such things and in spite of the fact that they have proven dangerous to the Faith.
Thank you for being a Religion Moderator.
Please explain: How come swampfox101 can make things >personal & Roman Catholics are admonished by the Moderator.
Please see comment #130 by >swampfox.
This is part of the comment by >swampfox:
“Its >you, the Catholic Church and the pope that >”dispise” Christ and His word.”
How come swampfox and others can make it personal & yet Roman Catholics are the only ones admonished?
Are Roman Catholics treated differently at freepublic?
Please explain. I asked this question once before & did not receive an adequate answer?
Does the Moderator >choose sides when an attack is being made on Catholics & the Catholic Church?
Please answer & be specific to the attacks by swampfox101 against Catholics. There are numerous personal attacks.
Thank you for being a Moderator.
Another question:
Does the Moderator read >all comments? Or, does the Moderator just respond to complaints?
I believe Swampfox was being asked to >explain his views & he has been avoiding that as he is constantly >hating on Catholics & the Catholic Church.
I do not think swampfox is actually a Christian in the commonly understood use of the word. My opinion is swampfox has the religion of >hate, particularly for catholics & the Catholic Church.
1. How does the Moderator respond to comments in a thread? There are numerous >personal attacks by swampfox that received no >public scolding.
Yes, Catholics are treated differently on FreeRepublic than non-Catholics because we are different. For non-Catholics religion is a matter of personal choice and the denomination one belongs to is but one of many organizations that they can join or quit at any time.
We Catholics are different. Catholic is not what we are, it is who we are. The Church founded by Jesus is an organic being in and of itself and each member is but a part of the whole. Do not expect non-Catholic to understand, appreciate, or respect this regardless of their Christian intentions or professed balance and impartiality. The world hates us because it hated Him. Wear it proudly, but do not hate in return.
Peace be with you.
On the Religion Forum, when one poster is warned all other posters in the sidebar should consider themselves warned. This is based on the principle that two wrongs do not make a right.
Click here for more information on the Religion Forum guidelines.
Thank you for your reply. & Thank you for being a Moderator.
I’ve looked at the guidelines before, and it didn’t answer basic questions I asked.
1. Are Roman Catholics judged by a different standard than other people on freerepublic by the >Religion Moderator?
2. Do Religion Moderator choose sides when someone attacks the Catholic Church?
3. Why was swampfox101 allowed to make personal attacks? Was my observation more dire than his attacks?
4. Thank you for telling me that the Religion Moderator responds to >complaints.
My observation: Swampfox101 was enjoying throwing hateful-rocks at >me, other Catholics & the Catholic Church. But, he was unwilling in a deceitful manner to explain his ‘religion’ & his faith formation.
There are a lot of evil-crybabies in the world.
Deceitful people do not want to answer these questions:
1. Do you believe in Predestination?
2. Are you ‘Born Again’ & baptized by the Holy Spirit?
3. Is there an >actual real church we can see with our own >eyes that teaches the >Truth from Jesus Christ? Or, are you the ‘pope of your own armchair church?’
4. Are your religious views formed by a preacher on the >radio.
There is an >infamously >wrong radio-preacher by the name of Harold Camping on Family Radio Stations. Swampfox101 sounds a lot like ‘Harold, the world is going to end >twice now!!! so it’s time to >>>>send me your money—, Camping.’
Thank you for your >EXCELLENT Catholic advice.
Who’s crying..........?
Tough time defending huh?
“Peace be with you”
And you my friend.
2. No
3. "Personal attacks" are not allowed anywhere on Free Republic. Calling another poster names and accusing him of serious misconduct are forms of "personal attacks."
"Making it personal" is not allowed on the Religion Forum. Accusing another Freeper of telling a lie, attributing motives to him, reading his mind, badgering him with the same questions over/again, following him around and making the thread "about" him are all forms of "making it personal."
You have been doing such things on this thread.
When I notice a poster "making it personal" - I warn him. I do not look to see if it was provoked because two wrongs do not make a right.
Under the RF guidelines, other posters involved in this sidebar should consider themselves warned since you have been warned.
Finally, "open" Religion Forum threads are like a town square. Posters may argue for and against dieties, beliefs, religious authorities and so on. They may ridicule such things. They are often contentious.
If you are offended by that style of debate then IGNORE "open" Religion Forum threds altogether - do not read them nor post to them. Instead post to RF threads labeled "devotion" "prayer" "ecumenical" or "caucus."
Thick skin is required on "open" RF threads.
Thank you for being a Religion Moderator.
Why was swampfox allowed to say, “It’s >You, the Catholic Church and the pope that >”dispise” Christ & His word?”
Yet, I was warned for saying, “you don’t understand it.”
There seems to be >a great difference in the two comments.
Your answer does not explain it.
As to choosing sides:
Please see swampfox comments #147 & 148.
Religion Moderator, >I believe you choose sides when Roman Catholics are defending their Church.
Please review: comment #130 again.
In fact, I would ask you to go back and re-read all of swampfox’s comments. I see them as >personal attacks.
Do you the Religion Moderator see swampfox’s comments as expressing the love for Jesus Christ?
Religion Moderator, if you have read all of swampfox’s comments = you’d realize ALL my comments are about his ‘armchair church.’ Swampfox is presenting himself as the >only member of his church. Swampfox is presenting himself as ‘the pope of his armchair church.’
I keep asking ‘the pope of swampfox’s armchair church’ to explain his religious beliefs & his faith formation. I’m very curious how swampfox became ‘pope of his armchair church.’ I consider it to be a legitimate question.
I also, think people that claim ‘Christianity’ as their religion should NOT NOT be deceitful as to their >religious beliefs & their faith formation.
Religion Moderator: Why can swampfox >attack the Pope of the Catholic Church but we are >admonished for asking questions of the ‘pope of swampfox armchair church?’
Also, just looking at comments #147 & #148, it appears as the though the ‘pope of swampfox’s armchair church,’ thinks you have sided with him.
I too thank you.
Have a great day.
Swampfox101, on post 130 you were reading gghd's mind and therefore "making it personal" when you said:
Thank you for your reply.
As I understand your reply:
1. I’m allowed to criticize ‘the pope of swampfox’s armchair church.’
2. I’m allowed to say ‘pope-swampfox’s armchair church teaches false doctrine.’
3. I’m allowed to say, ‘the pope of swampfox’s armchair church sounds similar to ‘Harold Camping of end of the world fame.’
+ I have >specifically heard Harold Camping on his Radio Programs make specific anti-Catholic statements. & Harold Camping has professed a Predestination view of Salvation with a very limited number of people entering Heaven.
As you must have read comment #130 by now, pope-swampfox thinks only 6-8 million people are part of the ‘Lord’s Church.’
That is an amazing >exclusionary number out of 7 Billion people on earth.
As an observation, that number sounds more like a >cult-religion. Cults are discussed on freerepublic. = Please, don’t consider it a ‘personal statement’ directed to someone. Please consider it simply a descriptive term found on freerepublic.
4. When people deny membership in >any visible church, the only option left is to refer to them as ‘their name & armchair church.’ ‘Or as pope-name.’
5. Pope-swampfox was posting as the authority on scripture. That’s why I referred to him as ‘pope of scriptures’ & ‘pope of his armchair church.’
Religion Moderator, I did NOT NOT see in the guidelines where ‘asking a question over & over was considered
badgering.’ I thought it was extremely deceitful for pope-swampfox to deny any >visible church & then complain when we asked him (as pope of his own church) about his views.
I repeatedly ask deceitful pope-swampfox to explain where he learned his view of the scriptures. The fact he was so evasive about radio-preachers led me to ask the question 3 times.
Also, as a general question:
‘Are Religion Moderators members of a church or Religion that is hostile to the Roman Catholic Church.’
In my opinion based on two admonishments & viewing numerous comments by people that >hate the Catholic Church, there is a definite animosity towards the Catholic Church by at least one if not more Religion Moderators.
For the record: I was arguing with pope-swampfox as though he was a >pope of sorts. = The pope of his peewee armchair church & pope of the scriptures.
In the Roman Catholic Church, the title pope is one of honor. I do believe that pope-swampfox should be honored when Catholics refer to him as pope!!!
Thank you for your time. It’s a difficult job trying to be a Religion Moderator on a Roman Catholic thread where >hate-mongers are allowed to post insults against Catholics & the Catholic Church with impunity.
It is enough to state once that you believe that he is his own Pope and thereafter use a title that would apply to any person so situation, e.g. "self-Pope". That would not be "making it personal."
Religion Moderators do not reveal their own religious memberships.
If you are offended when posters insult your Church, beliefs, religious authorities and so on then you should IGNORE "open" Religion Forum threads altogether. They are in a town square format, thick-skin is required.
Thank you for your reply:
As I understand your reply. I can refer to members of the swampfox armchair church as that is the only possible way to identify swampfox-armchair-church from the other ‘self-churches’ in the world.
Example: Many Churches in the world use a modifier to distinguish their church from other churches with the same name = Baptist, free-will Baptist, Southern Baptist.
Self-pope can be numerous people. & I do not see in freerepublic guidelines where using a person’s name is prohibited = especially when that person is addressed with an honorable title of pope.
I do believe, freerepublic should encourage clarity of thought as one of its goals. Self-pope in a series of comments does not lead to ‘clarity’ when addressing a particular church such as swampfox’s ‘self-pope armchair church.’
The Religion Moderator has mentioned to >me specifically about being offended with insults to my Church.
To set the record straight: I would like the >same latitude to address the pope-name people of other churches.
As I have said before: There seems to be an animosity towards the Catholic Church & >Catholics which allows >hate mongers to hate >Catholics with impunity.
I also suspect that >swampfox was the true >crybaby in this discussion about >pope-swampfox’s armchair church. Pope-swampfox was not here to discuss any religion dispute. I personally thought pope-swampfox was here to >hate.
The standards the Religion Moderator has set in this thread are NOT completely set out in the guidelines. Do the Religion Moderators have a >separate guideline sheet or do the Religion Moderators ‘make things up’ as they go along with specific general items set by the guidelines.
I ask because there does seem to be a general tolerance for hate mongering against >Catholics with supposedly >prohibited pronouns. BUT, when a Catholic uses the same pronoun against a hate-monger, the moderator steps in to the thread.
Please compared post #130 with the comment I was admonished about.
Please refer to post #147 & #148. I personally interpreted those two posts as a >gloating comments as though >swampfox considered the Religion Moderator to be choosing his side in a dispute against a >Catholic.
The comment ‘who’s crying...’ leads me to think >swampfox was the crybaby in this dispute.
+ Rather than a long comment where I use swampfox’s name, it appears I can make short ‘snarky’ comments based on your guidelines & what is permitted to >Catholic haters.
For instance:
I could simple address the comment to >swampfox & then in the body of the comment say,
Self pope of a church that despises Jesus.
Since swampfox was allowed to post such a comment without admonishment in #130, let me demonstrate it for you.
Self-pope of an armchair church that despises Jesus.
What is the Religion Moderator’s opinion of post #158?
Are >Catholics able to post comments in the same manner as Catholic-haters?
Religion Moderator, you have permission to look at >all my comments on freerepublic.
I don’t typically address comments such as is found in #158.
I don’t know with certainty swampfox’s opinion of Jesus Christ. It’s for God to look into swampfox’s heart.
The comment was >not offered to offend >But to make a needed point.
In Catholic Church & much of Christianity = The Church is considered the Body of Jesus Christ. & To insult the Church is to insult Jesus Christ.
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.