Infallible, you say?

[Jaime]

[quote]QUOTE
And I'm afraid that you, like CAM, are not going to have your questions answered for the same reason.


Because there is no rebuttal for the truth.[/quote]

DING DING DING DING DING

Judges also would have accepted "Because Littleles is in well over his head"

[Guest Eremite]

[quote]In the theory of papal (or any) infallibility, the Holy Spirit is suppose to be the source. And the wording is to be interpreted just as written.[/quote]

This is incorrect in two respects. First, the infallibility of the Church is not to be confused with divine inspiration. Infalliblity is a negative charism, meaning God prevents something, rather than does something. He prevents error, he does not inspire specific documents or words (as he does in Sacred Scripture). This is a fundamental element of Infallibility which you seem not to have grasped. Your assertion errs, as well, in the approach to interpretation. Catholicism is not Fundamentalism. When exegeting Scripture, we must first seek out the "literal" interpretation, but literal is not to confused with literalism. The "literal" interpretation is that which seeks out to discern what exactly an author meant with his words. If he says, for example, "The right hand of God is mighty and fierce", the literal interpretation is not that God has a right hand, but that God is mighty and fierce. The passage isn't trying to assert that God has a body.

[quote]'This is my body' would you allow us to interpret that as meaning 'This symbolizes my body'? In short, that Jesus was speaking metaphorically? I'm afraid that when specific statements are made, but you then claim a different meaning, you're starting down a slippery slope.[/quote]

I agree that private interpretation is a slippery slope. This is PRECISELY why the Lord left us a Magisterium, by whom he guides the Church to infallibly discern the deposit of faith. Could Jesus be speaking symbolically when he says "This is my body"? Sure, he could, just as the "could" be speaking as a non-divine man when he says "the father is greater than I". Fortunately, I don't have to figure these things out for myself. God has provided me with the successors to the Apostles to guide me in my faith.

[quote]You do realize that the real purpose of Unam Sanctam was to establish papal supremacy over kings, don't you? But we can explore the development of papal authority as a separate thread after infallibility.[/quote]

That would be an interested thread indeed.

[LittleLes]

Yes, indeed. It is always a joy to debate someone who demands documentation that someone didn't write something after they were dead.

Or claims that someone should not put on a bandaid who isn't a board certified tramua surgeon.

Or those who applaud such behaviors.

LittleLes

[Cam42]

What? That makes no sense Littleles.

Cam

[Jaime]

[quote]Or claims that someone should not put on a bandaid who isn't a board certified tramua surgeon. wacko.gif [/quote]

People can certainly put band aids on... However if you can't spell trauma, you probably shouldn't do surgery

[LittleLes]

Sorry, I'm afraid its my poor keyboarding.

The good Irish Christian Brothers insisted that I take four years of Latin, and didn't allow me to take typing.

Latin is so useful!

But I'm a poor speller, too. Fortunately, studies have shown that there is no correlation between spelling ability and IQ. And on the other hand, I consider it unimagnitive to always spell a word the same.

Little Les

[Cam42]

[quote]Latin is so useful![/quote]

Ut unus bulla biblia lingua latinae est utilis. Vadum nos persevero is in lingua? Nos es utriusque scholasticus in lingua. Rectus?

Cam

[Guest Eremite]

Que?

[LittleLes]

Moving along on the topic of ex cathedra statements, there is this from Vatican I's Pastor Aeternus, C4, which deals with infallible statements:

"The Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter in such a way that, by his revelation, they might manifest new doctrine, but so that by his assistance, they might guard as sacred and might faithfully propose the revelation delivered through the apostles or the deposit of faith."

So, no new doctrine. It has to be a revelation delivered through the apostles (mainly in scripture) or the deposit of faith.

Before we go further, how would one limit the deposit of faith?

I'll lead off with one definition. That which was revealed by the apostles or those taught by them. It might be a writing or a constant tradition.

Others....?

LittleLes

[Cam42]

[quote]Moving along on the topic of ex cathedra statements, there is this from Vatican I's Pastor Aeternus, C4, which deals with infallible statements:[/quote]

It is good that you now want to deal with Pastor Aeternus. I will provide a link:
[url="http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/papae1.htm"]Pastor Aeternus[/url]

Now, let's dig into it shall we.

I would suggest that everyone first read my post from Mar 10 2005, 07:30 PM. That is where I provided the first link and quotation from Pastor Aeternus. I will not repeat the post, however, we will see that PA most certainly does support the Catholic position.

Littleles' post is a misinterpretation of PA 4:6. If we look at the context in which it was written and understand the situation that it is speaking of, we will see that there is no conflict. However, I would ask Les to define [i]expound[/i].

[quote]Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. (PA 4:9)[/quote]

What this is saying when taking into context the partial quote of Littleles, we see that the Pope may expound without worry on the doctrines that are already in existence. AND he, while adhereing to the promise of the HOLY SPIRIT to protect the deposit of faith, will teach and define in his office of teacher, in an infallible manner concerning faith and morals. This is not invoked in every instance, but rather "when he speaks EX CATHEDRA."

There have been two instances of this. These two instances were on the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption. All other infallible statements were made by virtue of the unity of the bishops of the world to the Pontiff, either gathered in an oecumenical council or scattered across the world, but united by their office.

PA 4:9 speaks directly to Littles' misinterpretation when it says:
[quote]....the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable. (PA 4:9)[/quote]

Cam

Edited March 11, 2005 by Cam42

[LittleLes]

Moving right along we have two questions:

(1) Is the Assumption of Mary recorded in the New Testament?

(2) When did the tradition of the Assumption begin?


LittleLes

[Guest Eremite]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Mar 11 2005, 02:18 PM'] Moving right along we have two questions:

(1) Is the Assumption of Mary recorded in the New Testament?

(2) When did the tradition of the Assumption begin?


LittleLes [/quote]
1) Not explicitly, no. Implicitly, yes. ("Arise, O Lord, and go into Thy resting place, Thou and the ark of Thy might"--Psalm 132:8). Our Lady is acknowledged as the ark of the New Covenant.

2) When it happened.

Edited March 11, 2005 by Eremite

[LittleLes]

Hi Eremite:

(1) I'm afraid we have to have a explicit scriptural reference. One can claim an 'implicit" scriptural support for just about anything. Perhaps I could modify this question. Which scriptural verse did Pius XII cite to evidence the fact of the Assumption?

(2) "When it happened" presupposes that it did happen. Perhaps I can restate my question. When is the Assumption first reported to have happened? ( By whom would be nice to know too).

LittleLes

[Guest Eremite]

[quote]I'm afraid we have to have a explicit scriptural reference. One can claim an 'implicit" scriptural support for just about anything[/quote]

Who is "we"? YOU may need an explicit Scriptural reference. Catholicism does not. Don't project your own beliefs onto Catholic doctrine. If you require an explicit Scriptural reference, fine. We don't. Also, I'd be curious to know what explicit biblical passage says the Bible is inspired by God.

[quote]Which scriptural verse did Pius XII cite to evidence the fact of the Assumption?[/quote]

Go read the document in which he proclaims the dogma. Don't ask us to do your legwork for you.

[quote]When is the Assumption first reported to have happened? ( By whom would be nice to know too).[/quote]

It was first reported by the Apostles. As to the first written record of the tradition, the old Catholic Encyclopedia indicates that it is found in the apocryphal work "De Obitu S. Dominae".

Among the Fathers who held this tradition was Epiphaneus in the fourth century:

"If the Holy Virgin had died and was buried, her falling asleep would have been surrounded with honour, death would have found her pure, and her crown would have been a virginal one...Had she been martyred according to what is written: 'Thine own soul a sword shall pierce', then she would shine gloriously among the martyrs, and her holy body would have been declared blessed; for by her, did light come to the world."

Edited March 11, 2005 by Eremite

[LittleLes]

Hi Eremite:

I'm afraid that Pius XII does not claim that a scriptural passage supports the Assumption.

And if you reread the 4th century Epiphaenus, you will note he says nothing about an Assumption either.

But you correctly identified the 4th or 5th century Obitu S. Dominae as the first writing referring to the Assumption. However, you neglected to tell us that it was apocryphal and it is hardly possible that the claimed author, St. John, was still around to write it.

In sum, the best we can evidence is a legend that began in the 4th or 5th century and became popular.

That, of course, creates a little problem with the "no new dogma" restriction on infallibility stated by Vatican I.

Most of this information can be found in the on line Catholic Encyclopedia article on the Feast of the Assumption. But this was written before the Assumption became "dogma."


Little Les