Infallible, you say?

[LittleLes]

C-mother has brought up the topic of infallible teachings. I thoroughly agree that we should treat divergent topics in different posts. And should limit the subject. Therefore, for now I'll only deal with ex cathedra infallible statements, and, perhaps other aspects of infallibility later.

Since short posts are easier to read, I'll try to limit their length. Since some readers periodically complain that I haven't provided the "facts" (which I think I always have, although they may not be able accept them), lets start with a one "fact" and see if there is any objection.

The First Vatican Council (1869-1870), in Session 4 on 18 July 1870, "infallibly" taught:

(1) We teach and define as divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is when,

----In the exercise of his office as shephard and teacher of all Christians,

----in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,

----he defines a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the whole church..."

(2) Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable."


Note: Thus the teaching cannot be reversed, changed, added to or subtracted from.
And contrary to some claims, there is no required format; only that the three conditions be met whether in an Apostolic Letter, and Encyclical, or technically, an oral teaching, although this has never been done to the best of my knowledge.

Any disagreement with my "facts," at this point?

LittleLes

Edited March 8, 2005 by LittleLes

[Guest Eremite]

An infallible teaching can develop; it just won't contradict the previous definition.

Also, it should be noted that the Church distinguishes between the Supreme Extraordinary Magisterium, and the Supreme Ordinary Magisterium. Both can be infallible. (eg, Humanae Vitae was infallible, though part of the ordinary Magisterium).

[Apotheoun]

Here are a couple of things that I've posted on the nature of the Magisterium:

[url="http://www.geocities.com/apotheoun"]The Church's Magisterium[/url]

[url="http://www.geocities.com/apotheoun/professiofidei"]An Elucidation of the Three Concluding Propositions of the "Professio Fidei"[/url]

[Cam42]

Careful Appy...he doesn't "do" links.....

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Mar 8 2005, 09:29 AM'] Careful Appy...he doesn't "do" links..... [/quote]
He doesn't have to read what I've written, but it's his loss.

[LittleLes]

Hi Appy,

I don't object to URL's if the poster summarizes his point and then gives the URL for further reading. What I find very objectional is someone in effect saying "here is the answer" and then merely posting a URL.

I'm sometimes tempted to reply, "No it's not, it's here" and then posting the URL for the Encyclopedia Britiannica or Catholic Encyclopedia.

In short, I don't count a URL reference as a response or an assertion, and I suspect those who use URL's in this fashion haven't really thought through or understand the reference (or its limitations) they are posting a URL for. :angry:

LittleLes

Edited March 8, 2005 by LittleLes

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Mar 8 2005, 02:56 PM'] Hi Appy,

I don't object to URL's if the poster summarizes his point and then gives the URL for further reading. What I find very objectional is someone in effect saying "here is the answer" and then merely posting a URL.

I'm sometimes tempted to reply, "No it's not, it's here" and then posting the URL for the Encyclopedia Britiannica or Catholic Encyclopedia.

In short, I don't count a URL reference as a response or an assertion, and I suspect those who use URL's in this fashion haven't really thought through or understand the reference (or its limitations) they are posting a URL for. :angry:

LittleLes [/quote]
We use URLS because its conserves space on threads.
If you don't read them, its your loss.

[musturde]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Mar 8 2005, 12:56 PM'] Hi Appy,

I don't object to URL's if the poster summarizes his point and then gives the URL for further reading. What I find very objectional is someone in effect saying "here is the answer" and then merely posting  a URL.

I'm sometimes  tempted to reply, "No it's not, it's here" and then posting the URL for the Encyclopedia Britiannica or Catholic Encyclopedia.

In short, I don't count a URL reference as a response or an assertion, and I suspect those who use URL's in this fashion haven't really thought through or understand the reference (or its limitations) they are posting a URL for. :angry:

LittleLes [/quote]
Those are from his website. He wrote them. If you refuse to read them, you're just being lazy.

[Myles Domini]

[quote]Those are from his website. He wrote them. If you refuse to read them, you're just being lazy. [/quote]

I disagree. From all the threads he's started I think its quite obvious that LL is not lazy he's simply not interested in responding to anybody who provides good evidence for their case. He doesnt want to believe and from the looks of it he's only purpose on Phatmass is to try and make other people not believe (which, I might add, is incredibly amusing due to his tactics :rotfl: )

[God Conquers]

Although what you said might be true....

It was the Adawg who posted the links. Not Les.

[LittleLes]

I looked over the URLs and realized that they really don't deal with ex cathedra statements, the thread under consideration.

I'm familiar with the material including the error presented. We may deal with it under a separate thread.

Incidently, the Prefession of Faith is not a Papal writing, It comes from the Confrerternity for the Doctrine of the Faith, formerly the Office of the Holy Inquistiion, Ratzinger's group.

Lets stick to EX CATHEDRA statements. I think readers may see why these are rather questionable and some try to turn discussion away from this area. :angry:

LittleLes

[Myles Domini]

[quote]Although what you said might be true....

It was the Adawg who posted the links. Not Les. [/quote]

I know that but I have tried to get Less to read links too compartively simple also but he refused saying 'I dont read links' so I thought I'd point that out. Shockingly looks like our chuck has had a change of heart and actually looked at what ad posted. Although naturally he is attempting once again to divert attention from their content whilst at the same time trying to shift the focus of attention to his interpretation of ex cathedra statements. Classic! :laugh:

[LittleLes]

Please note that the thread is dealing with ex cathedra statements not infallibility in general. It's important to stay focused.

Littleles

[Aloysius]

how'd you get that it can't be added to?

of course it can be added to so long as its not contradicted. for example, for a long time it was held that Mary was sinless. A dogma more clearly defined that that sinlessness was from the moment of conception. so we added an extra distinction there. there are many examples.

anyway, yes, the Pope when speaking in his Petrine office on a matter of faith or morals in order to bind the church and close the matter he is infallible because the office of the papacy is guarded by the Holy Spirit, that office is the rock spoke of in Matthew 16:18. the office, not the person, is Divinely empowered to be infallible.

infallibility is a negative grace. this means that the pope when he meets all the previous criteria the Holy Spirit prevents him from teaching any error.

[Oik]

Catholicism isn't a one-point religion, it's all important and interconnected. It all matters.