The Cadaver Synod

[Tubal-Cain]

According to Wikipedia (take it or leave it), the following documents are ex cathedra:

* "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;

* Cum 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.

If you're going to criticize papal infallibility it would apparently have to be with those documents and nothing else.

[Kansasdad]

Well, if they could be wrong, which they can't, then it would be a problem, but since they are all right, even if they are wrong they are right, then where is the problem?

However, if instead you have hit on the very head a nail that no Catholic wants you to notice, and certainly they don't want you to hit it, then I suspect that the light of day will not shine on this dark corner for long.

I use a simple rule in observing stupid doctrines. If they are stupid, then God did not make the doctrine, and it is not found in the bible. This one is a classic.

Peter was rebuked by Paul in his later years. Does that sound like infallability?

You've actually explained the NEED for a doctrine of infallibility for the Church.

Whether you believe that it is granted to the Pope, or to the Church in some other way, it must exist for the Truth to be carried without perversion thru the ages.

Personal interpretation and formulation of doctrine does not work. It has resulted in the division and fragmentation we see today.

With the charism of infallibility, even though evil and stupid men may gain power and authority in the Church, the Holy Spirit will not allow them to corrupt the doctrine.

Peace,

Fiosh

This would be a NEED, only if that was the only way truth could be preserved (through a human agency). But there are several other ways God could choose (and I believe did acccording to scripture) to ensure that His truth is maintained.

Arguing from need (or result) is actually a form of arguing according to consequence. This says that something must be true because if it wasn't, something bad would happen (or the consequences would be undesirable).

However, there are several ways God could (and I think did) choose to preserve truth. Since there are numerous possible ways He could have chosen to do so, need is not sufficient to prove that one way is superior over others. There must be other proofs brought to bear to determine which is thwe way God has chosen to preserve truth.

Personal interpretation is not the only method that has resulted in error, division and schism. Those who believe that truth resides in their heirarchy (whether it be an organization or an individual) must apply that logic consistently. Your logic is that because individuals have made errors in judgement, individual interpretation cannot be a viable guide. Then using that same logic, because all institutions have made errors in judgement, none can be arbiters of the truth.

That is the weakness of arguing from result. If applied consistently, it rules out everything

Except that the argument from consequence shows that when speeking in this capasity the Pope through out the ages has never made an error. Therefore in this capasity history does bear out the arbiter of truth.

If you ignore the inquisition, the crusades, and the fact that the pope seems to change his mind regarding certain "eternal" truths every few hundred years or so.

None of which were ever considered infallible truths, given to us from a Pope. I really don't think you are reading the post. Not everything said by a Pope is infallible. In fact it is a rare event. One other distinction, It is not the Pope who is infallible, it is the Holy Spirit working through the Pope that is infallible. Does anyone here argue that the Holy Spirit is infallible. If not then the only question is, Has the Holy Spirit ever used a Pope? When this is the case, it is infallible. The doctrine of infallibility only defines when we can know it is the Holy Spirit working through the Pope. Any Tom Dick or Jane can claim to be guided by the Holy spirit, it doesn't make it true.

[rtwo]

Well, if they could be wrong, which they can't, then it would be a problem, but since they are all right, even if they are wrong they are right, then where is the problem?

However, if instead you have hit on the very head a nail that no Catholic wants you to notice, and certainly they don't want you to hit it, then I suspect that the light of day will not shine on this dark corner for long.

I use a simple rule in observing stupid doctrines. If they are stupid, then God did not make the doctrine, and it is not found in the bible. This one is a classic.

Peter was rebuked by Paul in his later years. Does that sound like infallability?

You've actually explained the NEED for a doctrine of infallibility for the Church.

Whether you believe that it is granted to the Pope, or to the Church in some other way, it must exist for the Truth to be carried without perversion thru the ages.

Personal interpretation and formulation of doctrine does not work. It has resulted in the division and fragmentation we see today.

With the charism of infallibility, even though evil and stupid men may gain power and authority in the Church, the Holy Spirit will not allow them to corrupt the doctrine.

Peace,

Fiosh

This would be a NEED, only if that was the only way truth could be preserved (through a human agency). But there are several other ways God could choose (and I believe did acccording to scripture) to ensure that His truth is maintained.

Arguing from need (or result) is actually a form of arguing according to consequence. This says that something must be true because if it wasn't, something bad would happen (or the consequences would be undesirable).

However, there are several ways God could (and I think did) choose to preserve truth. Since there are numerous possible ways He could have chosen to do so, need is not sufficient to prove that one way is superior over others. There must be other proofs brought to bear to determine which is thwe way God has chosen to preserve truth.

Personal interpretation is not the only method that has resulted in error, division and schism. Those who believe that truth resides in their heirarchy (whether it be an organization or an individual) must apply that logic consistently. Your logic is that because individuals have made errors in judgement, individual interpretation cannot be a viable guide. Then using that same logic, because all institutions have made errors in judgement, none can be arbiters of the truth.

That is the weakness of arguing from result. If applied consistently, it rules out everything

Except that the argument from consequence shows that when speeking in this capasity the Pope through out the ages has never made an error. Therefore in this capasity history does bear out the arbiter of truth.

If you ignore the inquisition, the crusades, and the fact that the pope seems to change his mind regarding certain "eternal" truths every few hundred years or so.

None of which were ever considered infallible truths, given to us from a Pope. I really don't think you are reading the post. Not everything said by a Pope is infallible. In fact it is a rare event. One other distinction, It is not the Pope who is infallible, it is the Holy Spirit working through the Pope that is infallible. Does anyone here argue that the Holy Spirit is infallible. If not then the only question is, Has the Holy Spirit ever used a Pope? When this is the case, it is infallible. The doctrine of infallibility only defines when we can know it is the Holy Spirit working through the Pope. Any Tom Dick or Jane can claim to be guided by the Holy spirit, it doesn't make it true.

If that's the case (and yes, I think we can agree to the infallibility of the Holy Spirit ), why have the doctrine at all? The Holy Spirit works through all believers... why even have a Pope? Furthermore, how do you "know" if what the pope says is from the Spirit? To me, this sets up far, far too much trust in one man (and again, I would point to the things I mentioned above as being examples of the problems this can cause). Has the Holy Spirit ever used the Pope? Quite possibly -- perhaps even in spite of him (the pope's) self at times ... said Spirit also spoke through a mule.

I would take you back to what you said: "Any Tom, Dick or Jane can claim to be guided by the Holy Spirit, it doesn't make it true." This, I would suggest, applies also to the Pope.

[AnotherTraveler]

Reducing the doctrine to the absurd does not take much reduction, and claiming it has been used only a few times in history does not make it right (and is frankly a really hollow arguement).

At the end of the day, God's infallibility was never in question.

[MorningGlory]

Some people ARE DEAF because they JUST dont want hear...

THE POPE IS SCIENCE FICTION STUFF...

JESUS IS THE ROCK

I MEAN,CAMON,JESUS IS THE ROCK upon which HE is BUILDING "HIS" CHURCH!!!!

HALLOOOOOO''''

NO POPE.....ONE GOD,FATHER SON HOLY SPIRIT and a bunch of sinners saved by grace that are all brothers and sisters NO POPE and PAPAL INFALLIBILITY.WAKE UP catholic brothers and sisters,WAKE UP

SHALOM

[EricH]

Once again, we don't allow specific denominations or leaders of those denominations to be the focus here. Closed