The Charism of Infallibility

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Jul 15 2005, 08:44 PM']Yeah, we're afraid of facing it because it's something we've never seen before, and find the prospect of the unknown terrifying!
[right][snapback]644902[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

In the case of some traditional and conservative Catholics, it certainly is!

[Cam42]

a 1 and a 2 and a 3 and 4 and a spam-a-lama-ding-dong.

Only 4 spams to his own thread. Sheesh......

[Socrates]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 15 2005, 08:49 PM']RESPONSE:

Yes, and I think from the Acts of the Apostles and the writings of Paul we demonstrated that the original followers of Jesus remained a sect within orthodox Judaism ,and that their leader was James the Brother of Jesus. After the destruction of Jerusalem, Pauline Christianity became dominant obviously led by Paul.

Peter wasn't the leader of either.
[right][snapback]644911[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

You've demonstrated nothing of the sort. Your bogus claims are thoroughly refuted in [url="http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1996/9610eaw.asp"]this article[/url]

[Jaime]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Jul 15 2005, 08:42 PM']And endless ramblings on Galileo and the authorship of scripture acording to Raymond Brown are always fascinating! 
[right][snapback]644900[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Wait Socrates.... Are you saying there was something that happened between the Church and Galileo?

[Socrates]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 15 2005, 08:53 PM']RESPONSE:

In the case of some traditional and conservative Catholics, it certainly is!
[right][snapback]644914[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Evidently, you miss the irony in my statement. Oh well, enough feeding the troll. . . :sleep:

[Socrates]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 15 2005, 08:51 PM']RESPONSE:

Yes, aren't they. A bit different than what Catholic apologists try to tell you isn't it?
[right][snapback]644913[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Yeah, unlike Littleles and Raymond Brown, the Catholic Apologists make sense!

Edited July 16, 2005 by Socrates

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Jul 15 2005, 09:16 PM']Yeah, unlike Littleles and Raymond Brown, the Catholic Apologists make sense! 
[right][snapback]644939[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

Really? Lets take that most famous apologist, Thomas Aquinas, and see what he claimed about papal teaching authority.

This is from his Summa Theologica, 2/2, question 1:
“Consequently to publish a new edition of the symbol belongs to that authority which is empowered to decide matters of faith finally, so that they may be held by all with unshaken faith. Now this belongs to the authority of the Sovereign Pontiff, "to whom the more important and more difficult questions that arise in the Church are referred," as stated in the Decretals [Dist. xvii, Can. 5].”

But the problem here is that Thomas cited as his reference Decretals (Dist xvii, Can. 5]. This is contained in the spurious False Decretals, a collection of writings from the ninth century developed and used to support papal claims to authority. They also formed the basis for canon law.

As the Catholic Encyclopedia admits:
"False Decretals is a name given to certain apocryphal papal letters contained in a collection of canon laws composed about the middle of the ninth century by an author who uses the pseudonym of Isidore Mercator, in the opening preface to the collection.

"Nowadays every one agrees that these so-called papal letters are forgeries.

"A list of sixty apocryphal letters or decrees attributed to the popes from St. Clement (88-97) to Melchiades (311-314) inclusive. Of these sixty letters fifty-eight are forgeries."

So we have to write off this apologist's claim!

[Cam42]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 16 2005, 08:00 AM']"Nowadays every one agrees that these so-called papal letters are forgeries.

"A list of sixty apocryphal letters or decrees attributed to the popes from St. Clement (88-97) to Melchiades (311-314) inclusive. Of these sixty letters fifty-eight are forgeries."

So we have to write off this apologist's claim!
[right][snapback]645269[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

And just where did that quote come from? More quoting without sourcing. Typical......no credence.

And incidentally,
[quote]This is from his Summa Theologica, 2/2, question 1:
“Consequently to publish a new edition of the symbol belongs to that authority which is empowered to decide matters of faith finally, so that they may be held by all with unshaken faith. Now this belongs to the authority of the Sovereign Pontiff, "to whom the more important and more difficult questions that arise in the Church are referred," as stated in the Decretals [Dist. xvii, Can. 5].”

But the problem here is that Thomas cited as his reference Decretals (Dist xvii, Can. 5]. This is contained in the spurious False Decretals, a collection of writings from the ninth century developed and used to support papal claims to authority. They also formed the basis for canon law.[/quote]

That is not from question two article one of the Prima Pars; Secunda Pars. [url="http://www.ccel.org/a/aquinas/summa/FS/FS002.html#FSQ2OUTP1"]This[/url] is:
[quote name='Summa Theologica II:II:I']Whether man's happiness consists in wealth?

Objection 1: It would seem that man's happiness consists in wealth. For since happiness is man's last end, it must consist in that which has the greatest hold on man's affections. Now this is wealth: for it is written (Eccles. 10:19): "All things obey money." Therefore man's happiness consists in wealth.

Objection 2: Further, according to Boethius (De Consol. iii), happiness is "a state of life made perfect by the aggregate of all good things." Now money seems to be the means of possessing all things: for, as the Philosopher says (Ethic. v, 5), money was invented, that it might be a sort of guarantee for the acquisition of whatever man desires. Therefore happiness consists in wealth.

Objection 3: Further, since the desire for the sovereign good never fails, it seems to be infinite. But this is the case with riches more than anything else; since "a covetous man shall not be satisfied with riches" (Eccles. 5:9). Therefore happiness consists in wealth.

On the contrary, Man's good consists in retaining happiness rather than in spreading it. But as Boethius says (De Consol. ii), "wealth shines in giving rather than in hoarding: for the miser is hateful, whereas the generous man is applauded." Therefore man's happiness does not consist in wealth.

I answer that, It is impossible for man's happiness to consist in wealth. For wealth is twofold, as the Philosopher says (Polit. i, 3), viz. natural and artificial. Natural wealth is that which serves man as a remedy for his natural wants: such as food, drink, clothing, cars, dwellings, and such like, while artificial wealth is that which is not a direct help to nature, as money, but is invented by the art of man, for the convenience of exchange, and as a measure of things salable.

Now it is evident that man's happiness cannot consist in natural wealth. For wealth of this kind is sought for the sake of something else, viz. as a support of human nature: consequently it cannot be man's last end, rather is it ordained to man as to its end. Wherefore in the order of nature, all such things are below man, and made for him, according to Ps. 8:8: "Thou hast subjected all things under his feet."

And as to artificial wealth, it is not sought save for the sake of natural wealth; since man would not seek it except because, by its means, he procures for himself the necessaries of life. Consequently much less can it be considered in the light of the last end. Therefore it is impossible for happiness, which is the last end of man, to consist in wealth.

Reply to Objection 1: All material things obey money, so far as the multitude of geniuses is concerned, who know no other than material goods, which can be obtained for money. But we should take our estimation of human goods not from the foolish but from the wise: just as it is for a person whose sense of taste is in good order, to judge whether a thing is palatable.

Reply to Objection 2: All things salable can be had for money: not so spiritual things, which cannot be sold. Hence it is written (Prov. 17:16): "What doth it avail a fool to have riches, seeing he cannot buy wisdom."

Reply to Objection 3: The desire for natural riches is not infinite: because they suffice for nature in a certain measure. But the desire for artificial wealth is infinite, for it is the servant of disordered concupiscence, which is not curbed, as the Philosopher makes clear (Polit. i, 3). Yet this desire for wealth is infinite otherwise than the desire for the sovereign good. For the more perfectly the sovereign good is possessed, the more it is loved, and other things despised: because the more we possess it, the more we know it. Hence it is written (Ecclus. 24:29): "They that eat me shall yet hunger." Whereas in the desire for wealth and for whatsoever temporal goods, the contrary is the case: for when we already possess them, we despise them, and seek others: which is the sense of Our Lord's words (Jn. 4:13): "Whosoever drinketh of this water," by which temporal goods are signified, "shall thirst again." The reason of this is that we realize more their insufficiency when we possess them: and this very fact shows that they are imperfect, and the sovereign good does not consist therein.[/quote]

Where do you come up with this stuff? I honestly think that you don't think that we will check your sources.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Jul 16 2005, 08:47 AM']And just where did that quote come from?  More quoting without sourcing.  Typical......no credence.

And incidentally,
That is not from question two article one of the Prima Pars; Secunda Pars.

Where do you come up with this stuff?  I honestly think that you don't think that we will check your sources.
[right][snapback]645308[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

When you check my "sources," please begin to do so correctly. Note that my reference is to 2/2, that is the second section of the second part, not the second section of the first part as you quoted.

And perhaps I did presume too much in thinking that you were aware of Aquinas' Summa Theologica.

Once again: "I answer that, As stated above (Objection 1), a new edition of the symbol becomes necessary in order to set aside the errors that may arise. Consequently to publish a new edition of the symbol belongs to that authority which is empowered to decide matters of faith finally, so that they may be held by all with unshaken faith. Now this belongs to the authority of the Sovereign Pontiff, "to whom the more important and more difficult questions that arise in the Church are referred," as stated in the Decretals [Dist. xvii, Can. 5.].

[Paladin D]

Delete.

Edited July 16, 2005 by Paladin D

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Jul 15 2005, 09:16 PM']Yeah, unlike Littleles and Raymond Brown, the Catholic Apologists make sense! 
[right][snapback]644939[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE, PART 2:

Yes . I'm always fascinated with the blind faith some Catholics put in Catholic apologists.

For example, realizing that there is a serious historical question as to whether Peter was ever the bishop of Rome and needing to prove this for doctrinal reasons, apologist like to quote from Clement of Rome's Epistle to James in the hope that most Catholics will remain gullible and not check the reference:

Epistle of Clement to James
------------
Clement to James, the lord, and the bishop of bishops, who rules Jerusalem, the holy church of the Hebrews, and the churches everywhere excellently rounded by the providence of God, with the elders and deacons, and the rest of the brethren, peace be always.

1 -- Peter's Martyrdom.

"Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon, who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus Himself, with His truthful mouth, named Peter, the first-fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect, and associate at table and in the journeyings of Christ; the excellent and approved disciple, who, as being fittest of all, was commanded to enlighten the darker part of the world, namely the West, and was enabled to accomplish it, -- and to what extent do I lengthen my discourse, not wishing to indicate what is sad, which yet of necessity, though reluctantly, I must tell you, -- he himself, by reason of his immense love towards men, having come as far as Rome, clearly and publicly testifying, in opposition to the wicked one who withstood him, that there is to be a good King over all the world, while saving men by his God-inspired doctrine, himself, by violence, exchanged this present existence for life."

But unfortunately this is another of the pseudo-Isidorian decretals. In fact, most of the writings attributed to Clement are spurious.

As even the Catholic Encyclopedia admits:

"II. PSEUDO-CLEMENTINE WRITINGS

"Many writings have been falsely attributed to Pope St. Clement I:

"At the head of the Pseudo-Isidorian decretals stand five letters attributed to St. Clement. The first is the letter of Clement to James translated by Rufinus (see III); the second is another letter to James, found in many MSS. of the "Recognitions". The other three are the work of Pseudo-Isidore (See FALSE DECRETALS.) "

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Jul 15 2005, 09:16 PM']Yeah, unlike Littleles and Raymond Brown, the Catholic Apologists make sense! 
[right][snapback]644939[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE PART 3.

One of the most quoted apologists was the fourth century historian Eusebius (the chap who told us the Peter was bishop of Rome for 25 years).

He also told us this:

"1. Letter Attributed to our Lord:

The letter attributed to our Lord is given in Eusebius (Historia Ecclesiastica, I, 13) who records that in his day a copy of the letter was to be found among the archives of Edessa. Abgarus, king of Osroene, which was a small country in Mesopotamia, writes from Edessa, the capital, to our Lord, asking for healing and offering Him protection. Our Lord sends back a short letter saying that He cannot leave Palestine, but that, after His ascension, a messenger will come and heal Abgarus. The letters are obviously spurious. Osroene was actually Christianized about the beginning of the 3rd century, and the legend took shape and received official sanction in order to show that the country had received the Gospel at a much earlier date"

Eusebius' writings are on line at New Advent for those who want to check Eusebius' story!

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Jul 16 2005, 08:47 AM']And just where did that quote come from?  More quoting without sourcing.  Typical......no credence.

[/quote]

RESPONSE TWO:

From Les's original post for which CAM wants a reference:

This is from his Summa Theologica, 2/2, question 1:
“Consequently to publish a new edition of the symbol belongs to that authority which is empowered to decide matters of faith finally, so that they may be held by all with unshaken faith. Now this belongs to the authority of the Sovereign Pontiff, "to whom the more important and more difficult questions that arise in the Church are referred," as stated in the Decretals [Dist. xvii, Can. 5].”

But then CAM tells me:

That is not from question two article one of the Prima Pars; Secunda Pars. This is:

So first CAM accuses me of quoting without sourcing (of course I did in the first line), but then quoting incorrectly and he quotes something different avoiding Aquinas' faux pas.

But note, CAM doesn't challenge the evidence itself. Just tries to avoid it.
I find many apologists use that tactic.

[Cam42]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 16 2005, 11:08 AM']RESPONSE:

When you check my "sources," please begin to do so correctly.  Note that my reference is to 2/2, that is the second section of the second part, not the second section of the first part as you quoted.

And perhaps I did presume too much in thinking that you were aware of Aquinas' Summa Theologica.

Once again:  "I answer that, As stated above (Objection 1), a new edition of the symbol becomes necessary in order to set aside the errors that may arise. Consequently to publish a new edition of the symbol belongs to that authority which is empowered to decide matters of faith finally, so that they may be held by all with unshaken faith. Now this belongs to the authority of the Sovereign Pontiff, "to whom the more important and more difficult questions that arise in the Church are referred," as stated in the Decretals [Dist. xvii, Can. 5.].
[right][snapback]645350[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

You need to cite your sources properly. You didn't do that, however, here is what that says:

[quote name='Summa Theologica II;II:II:I']Whether to believe is to think with assent?

Objection 1: It would seem that to believe is not to think with assent. Because the Latin word "cogitatio" [thought] implies a research, for "cogitare" [to think] seems to be equivalent to "coagitare," i.e. "to discuss together." Now Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iv) that faith is "an assent without research." Therefore thinking has no place in the act of faith.

Objection 2: Further, faith resides in the reason, as we shall show further on (Question [4], Article [2]). Now to think is an act of the cogitative power, which belongs to the sensitive faculty, as stated in the FP, Question [78], Article [4]. Therefore thought has nothing to do with faith.

Objection 3: Further, to believe is an act of the intellect, since its object is truth. But assent seems to be an act not of the intellect, but of the will, even as consent is, as stated above (FS, Question [15], Article [1], ad 3). Therefore to believe is not to think with assent.

On the contrary, This is how "to believe" is defined by Augustine (De Praedest. Sanct. ii).

I answer that, "To think" can be taken in three ways. First, in a general way for any kind of actual consideration of the intellect, as Augustine observes (De Trin. xiv, 7): "By understanding I mean now the faculty whereby we understand when thinking." Secondly, "to think" is more strictly taken for that consideration of the intellect, which is accompanied by some kind of inquiry, and which precedes the intellect's arrival at the stage of perfection that comes with the certitude of sight. In this sense Augustine says (De Trin. xv, 16) that "the Son of God is not called the Thought, but the Word of God. When our thought realizes what we know and takes form therefrom, it becomes our word. Hence the Word of God must be understood without any thinking on the part of God, for there is nothing there that can take form, or be unformed." In this way thought is, properly speaking, the movement of the mind while yet deliberating, and not yet perfected by the clear sight of truth. Since, however, such a movement of the mind may be one of deliberation either about universal notions, which belongs to the intellectual faculty, or about particular matters, which belongs to the sensitive part, hence it is that "to think" is taken secondly for an act of the deliberating intellect, and thirdly for an act of the cogitative power.

Accordingly, if "to think" be understood broadly according to the first sense, then "to think with assent," does not express completely what is meant by "to believe": since, in this way, a man thinks with assent even when he considers what he knows by science [*Science is certain knowledge of a demonstrated conclusion through its demonstration.], or understands. If, on the other hand, "to think" be understood in the second way, then this expresses completely the nature of the act of believing. For among the acts belonging to the intellect, some have a firm assent without any such kind of thinking, as when a man considers the things that he knows by science, or understands, for this consideration is already formed. But some acts of the intellect have unformed thought devoid of a firm assent, whether they incline to neither side, as in one who "doubts"; or incline to one side rather than the other, but on account of some slight motive, as in one who "suspects"; or incline to one side yet with fear of the other, as in one who "opines." But this act "to believe," cleaves firmly to one side, in which respect belief has something in common with science and understanding; yet its knowledge does not attain the perfection of clear sight, wherein it agrees with doubt, suspicion and opinion. Hence it is proper to the believer to think with assent: so that the act of believing is distinguished from all the other acts of the intellect, which are about the true or the false.

Reply to Objection 1: Faith has not that research of natural reason which demonstrates what is believed, but a research into those things whereby a man is induced to believe, for instance that such things have been uttered by God and confirmed by miracles.

Reply to Objection 2: "To think" is not taken here for the act of the cogitative power, but for an act of the intellect, as explained above.

Reply to Objection 3: The intellect of the believer is determined to one object, not by the reason, but by the will, wherefore assent is taken here for an act of the intellect as determined to one object by the will.[/quote]

So....the Second Part of the Second Part; Question 2, article 1 really has nothing to do with what you are talking about. The only [i]faux pas[/i] is from you. I am avoiding nothing, but rather pointing out that you are the one who knows nothing about Aquinas. Nice attempt though.

[Kilroy the Ninja]

Perhaps you should try to get back to the original topic of your thread Les.

And if anyone will show me (possibly again) where this topic has been brought up before here, I will happily merge this thread with that thread. Unless it's closed, in which case, it's done.

Thank you and God Bless

[Cam42]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Jul 15 2005, 11:12 AM']Welcome to summer repeats
[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=30478"]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=30478[/url]
[right][snapback]644431[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

There ya go Kilroy....close away.....

[Jaime]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Jul 15 2005, 10:12 AM']Welcome to summer repeats
[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=30478"]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=30478[/url]
[right][snapback]644431[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

This doesn't qualify? Ok Granted Littleles never actually brought up anything that had to do with Infallibility. But we're going to go down the exact same road


rabble rabble rabble Usurey, rabble rabble

rabble rabble rabble Galileo, rabble rabble


rabble rabble rabble slavery rabble rabble

rabble rabble rabble heretics, rabble rabble

[LittleLes]

That infallibility in the Church exists is questionable; that it is confined to the bishops and the Pope is even more suspect.

John Henery Newman, who believed in infallibility in the whole Church, was very uncomfortable limiting it to the bishops and the Pope.

John Henry Newman (1801-1890), before Vatican I wrote,

"On Consulting the Faithful in Matters of Doctrine, July 1859"

"As to the present, certainly, if there ever was an age which might dispense with the testimony of the faithful, and leave the maintenance of the truth to the pastors of the Church, it is the age in which we live. Never was the Episcopate of Christendom so devoted to the Holy See, so religious, so earnest in the discharge of its special duties, so little disposed to innovate, so superior to the temptation of theological sophistry. And perhaps this is the reason why the "consensus fidelium" has, in the minds of many, fallen into the background. Yet each constituent portion of the Church has its proper functions, and no portion can safely be neglected. Though the laity be but the reflection or echo of the clergy in matters of faith, yet there is something in the "pastorum et fidelium conspiratio," which is not in the pastors alone."

This idea did go over too well at the Vatican, and, as we shall see, Newman's voice came to be viewed with some concern.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Jul 16 2005, 12:38 PM']This doesn't qualify? Ok Granted Littleles never actually brought up anything that had to do with Infallibility.  But we're going to go down the exact same road
rabble rabble rabble Usurey, rabble rabble

rabble rabble rabble Galileo, rabble rabble
rabble rabble rabble slavery  rabble rabble

rabble rabble rabble heretics, rabble rabble
[right][snapback]645466[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

The question should be is my data correct. Not whether or not you like it or want to hear it. Apologetic "lets pretend" knows no limits, nor is it tolerant of any dissent with its claims.

[Cam42]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 16 2005, 01:51 PM']That infallibility in the Church exists is questionable; that it is confined to the bishops and the Pope is even more suspect.

John Henery Newman, who believed in infallibility in the whole Church, was very uncomfortable limiting it to the bishops and the Pope.

John Henry Newman (1801-1890), before Vatican I wrote,

"On Consulting the Faithful in Matters of Doctrine, July 1859"

"As to the present, certainly, if there ever was an age which might dispense with the testimony of the faithful, and leave the maintenance of the truth to the pastors of the Church, it is the age in which we live. Never was the Episcopate of Christendom so devoted to the Holy See, so religious, so earnest in the discharge of its special duties, so little disposed to innovate, so superior to the temptation of theological sophistry. And perhaps this is the reason why the "consensus fidelium" has, in the minds of many, fallen into the background. Yet each constituent portion of the Church has its proper functions, and no portion can safely be neglected. Though the laity be but the reflection or echo of the clergy in matters of faith, yet there is something in the "pastorum et fidelium conspiratio," which is not in the pastors alone."

This idea did go over too well at the Vatican, and, as we shall see, Newman's voice came to be viewed with some concern.
[right][snapback]645473[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

What does Cardinal Newman say AFTER Vatican Council I, which solemnly defined Papal infalliblity? Forgot to mention that didn't you. We all know that Cardinal Newman had resevervations.....big deal, it was his perogative.....what did Cardinal Newman say after Vatican Council I? That is the key, LittleLes.