Is the Pope infallible..?

[stevehut]

1- Mary being the first believing Christian

2- As we  notices in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

3- Mary cooperated with God in the redemption of the world

1- How do we know this? There were 3,000 people baptized at Pentecost, how do we know she was among them?

2- I don't think quoting the Catechism will help persuade someone who isn't already catholic.

3- Yup. And so did Peter. And Paul. And John. And hopefully, me and you.

[Assisi]

There is no biblical reference to the assumption of Mary. The Gospel of John was written around 90 A.D., which is more than 100 years after Mary was born. (Surely Mary was more than ten years old when Jesus was conceived.) If Mary had been supernaturally assumed into Heaven, wouldn

[EricH]

A first century work attributed to St. Denis the Areopagite entitled the "Books of Divine Names" records a funeral panegyric pronounced by  Hierotheus, who reported that the Apostles had been divinely warned of the impending death of the Virgin Mary. All, except St. Thomas, managed to return in time for Her death and funeral. For three days the Apostles and other faithful kept up a vigil at the Virgin

[Assisi]

In 495 A.D., Pope Gelasius issued a decree which rejected this teaching as heresy and its proponents as heretics. In the sixth century, Pope Hormisdas also condemned as heretics those authors who taught the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary. The early Church clearly considered the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary to be a heresy worthy of condemnation. Here we have

[Assisi]

The Early Fathers, and the theologians and canon lawyers of the Middle Ages, never taught that the bishops or the Pope were infallible. This is demonstrated by the fact that in 680 A.D. the Sixth Ecumenical Council condemned a pope as a heretic.

[

OK, so that quote from the ex-nun was pretty long. Anyone care to address these issues that I have highlighted?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I suppose by the Date she was talking about Pope Honorius. He did not, as he should have done, declare authoritatively the Petrine tradition of the Roman Church. To that tradition he had made no appeal but had merely approved and enlarged upon the half-hearted compromise of Sergius...Neither the pope nor the council consider that Honorius had compromised the purity of the Roman tradition, for he had never claimed to represent it. Therefore, just as today we judge the letters of Pope Honorius by the Vatican definition and deny them to be ex cathedra, because they do not define any doctrine and impose it upon the whole Church, so the Christians of the seventh century judged the same letters by the custom of their day, and saw that they did not claim what papal letters were wont to claim, viz., to speak with the mouth of Peter in the name of Roman tradition.

[Assisi]

The history of the early Church shows that the Bishop of Rome was considered to be just another bishop. For example, Pope Gregory (590-604 A.D.) explicitly stated that all of the bishops were equal.

[

OK, so that quote from the ex-nun was pretty long. Anyone care to address these issues that I have highlighted?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think she was talking about when he blamed John the Faster of Constantinople of this presumption in claiming such a title!

Gregory was Pope, and knew that he was Pope. Far from refusing the title, he showed that he was universal Bishop by excommunicating John the Faster, over whom he could not have had such jurisdiction had he not the privilege of being universal Bishop. In his 21st Epistle Gregory writes, "As to what they say of the Church of Christ, who doubts that it is subject to the Apostolic See [i.e. Rome] ?"

In so protesting Gregory exercised his universal jurisdiction as Bishop of Bishops, not hesitating to condemn John the Faster, Patriarch of Constantinople.

In many of his letters, also, he insists that the bishop of Rome holds the place of Peter, that he is the head of the "Faith," and "of all the Churches." And he declares that all the bishops are subject to the Apostolic See.

To understand the sense in which Pope Gregory condemned the expression "universal Bishop," you must understand the sense in which John the Faster intended it. It has always been Catholic teaching that the bishops are not mere agents of the Pope, but true successors of the Apostles. The supreme authority of Peter is perpetuated in the Popes; but the power and authority of the other Apostles is perpetuated in the other bishops in the true sense of the word.

The Pope is not the "only" Bishop; and, although his power is supreme, his is not the "only" power. But John the Faster, Patriarch of Constantinople, wanted to be bishop even of the dioceses of subordinate bishops, reducing them to mere agents, and making himself the universal or only real bishop. Pope Gregory condemned this intention, and wrote to John the Faster telling him that he had no right to claim to be universal bishop or "sole" bishop in his Patriarchate.

Predictably, anti-Catholics neglect to inform their audiences that the context of these statements makes it clear that Gregory was not making these statements in regard to himself or to any other pope. He believed the bishop of Rome has primacy of jurisdiction over all other bishops.

Like his predecessors and successors, Gregory promulgated numerous laws, binding on all other bishops, on issues such as clerical celibacy (1:42,50; 4:5,26,34; 7:1; 9:110,218; 10:19; 11:56), the deprivation of priests and bishops guilty of criminal offenses (1:18,32; 3:49; 4:26; 5:5,17,18), and the proper disposition of church revenues (1:10,64; 2:20-22; 3:22; 4:11)

Gregory's writings show that he regarded and conducted himself as the universal bishop of the Church. He calls the diocese of Rome "the Apostolic See, which is the head of all other churches" (13:1).

He said, "I, albeit unworthy, have been set up in command of the Church" (5:44). He taught that the pope, as successor to Peter, was granted by God a primacy over all other bishops (2:44; 3:30; 5:37; 7:37).

[stevehut]

It was the Apostle John to whom Mary's Assumption was first revealed (Rev 11:19)

Rev. 11:19 Then God's temple in heaven was opened, and within his temple was seen the ark of his covenant. And there came flashes of lightning, rumblings, peals of thunder, an earthquake and a great hailstorm.

?

[Assisi]

QUOTE(jc49 @ Jun 8 2005, 11:57 AM

[color=purple)

The claim for papal infallibility does not stand up to the test of history. For example, Pope Zosimus (417-418 A.D.) reversed the pronouncement of a previous pope. He also retracted a doctrinal pronouncement that he himself had previously made.

OK, so that quote from the ex-nun was pretty long. Anyone care to address these issues that I have highlighted?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This example of so-called "papal error was not an attempt to exercise infallibility with regard to faith or morals. It is a case of a Pope being better informed on the sincerity of heretics who pretended to be orthodox in order to escape condemnation and excommunication.

The Bishop of Rome as successor to St. Peter has the final say on issues of Catholic faith and doctrine -- this is clearly recognized by St. Augustine, the African Bishops, and the Pelagian heretics themselves (before, during and after the reign of Pope Zosimus 417-418);

The "mistake" or "error" of Pope Zosimus during the Pelagian controversy was not a "doctrinal issue" -- it was in accepting the submission and confessions of Celestius and Pelagius as sincere; this has nothing to do with papal infallibility since it is not an exercise of papal infallibility.

St. Augustine, the great opponent of Pelagianism, himself says the Pelagian heretics "were unable to deceive the Apostolic See to the end" (although they tried) and, along with the African Bishops, highly praises Popes St. Innocent, St. Zosimus, and St. Boniface recognizing their authority not only to define orthodox Catholic doctrine but to "cut off" (excommunicate) heretics from holy Mother Church.

Writing his book conira Collatorem against Cassian, in the time of Sixtus III, the next Pope, St. Prosper states his confidence "that what God has worked in Innocent, Zosimus, Boniface, Celestine, he will work also in Sixtus, and that in the guardianship of the Lord's flock there is reserved to this shepherd the special glory of expelling hidden wolves, as they did the open ones."

[stevehut]

The Bishop of Rome as successor to St. Peter has the final say on issues of Catholic faith and doctrine

OK, now I understand.

If this is the case, then why are quoting from the Scriptures to defend our respective positons?

[Assisi]

Assisi,

It does not appear that she have read the Gelasian Decree herself. It does not address the dogma of the Assumption of Mary. The Latin original of this document condemns the writing called "The Passing of Mary" as apocryphal.

Hello Assisi