The Charism of Infallibility

[Cam42]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Jul 17 2005, 11:03 AM']I haven't read this entire thread and I apologize. Actually I've just scanned over a couple individual posts (including the one quoted above).

Anyway, Newman's claim that the definition of papal infallibility was "inopportune" just means he thought the timing was bad. That's not to say that he thought the pope was wrong, that's silly. I've read some of what Newman said in the past and I recall perhaps concerns about the possible articulation as well as the timeliness given the ecumenical and political milieu of the time, but the man was a faithful Catholic, I have little doubt that he would have shed his blood to defend the truth of papal infallibility. I'll get you quotes sometime when I'm more awake and inspired... if you want.

cheers
[right][snapback]646352[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I thought that understanding English was a no-brainer Laudate....but alas....we are in LittleLes' world of fun.....he will read this as he wishes, not as it is actually written. No need to post Newman's defense, I already did. LittleLes won't address Newman's direct words.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Jul 17 2005, 11:49 AM']
[/quote]
It lies with you, LittleLes.

I have provided links to the Catholic Encyclopedia (which is apparently gospel to you) to support my position.

Are you ready to feel Little.....Les?
[quote=ibid.]Gregory IX, in 1230, ordered his chaplain and confessor, St. Raymond of Peñaforte (Pennafort), a Dominican, to form a new canonical collection destined to replace all former collections. It has been said that the pope by this measure wished especially to emphasize his power over the Universal Church. The papacy had, indeed, arrived at the zenith of its power. Moreover, a pope less favourably circumstanced would, perhaps, not have thought of so important a measure. Nevertheless, the utility of a new collection was so evident that it is needless to seek other motives than those which the pope himself gives in the Bull "Rex pacificus" of 5 September, 1234, viz., the inconvenience of recurring to several collections containing decisions most diverse and sometimes contradictory, exhibiting in some cases gaps and in others tedious length; moreover, on several matters the legislation was uncertain.

St. Raymond executed the work in about four years, and followed in it the method of the aforesaid "Quinque compilationes antiquæ". He borrowed from them the order of the subject-matter, the division into five books, of the books into titles and of the titles into chapters. Of the 1971 chapters which the Decretals of Gregory IX contain, 1771 are taken from the "Quinque compilationes antiquæ", 191 are due to Gregory IX himself, 7 are taken from decretals of Innocent III not inserted in the former collections, and 2 are of unknown origin. They are arranged, as a general rule, according to the order of the ancient collections, i. e. each title opens with the chapters of the first collection, followed by those of the second, and so on in regular order; then come those of Innocent III and finally those of Gregory IX. Almost all the rubrics, or headings of the titles, have also been borrowed from these collections, but several have been modified as regards detail. This method considerably lightened St. Raymond's task. However, he did more than simply compile the documents of former collections. He left out 383 decisions, modified several others, omitted parts when he considered it prudent to do So, filled up the gaps, and, to render his collection complete and concordant, cleared up doubtful points of the ancient ecclesiastical law by adding some new decretals. He indicated by the words et infra the passages excised by him in the former collections. They are called partes decis . The new compilation bore no special title, but was called "Decretales Gregorii IX" or sometimes "Compilatio sexta", i. e. the sixth collection with reference to the "Quinque compilationes antiquæ". It was also called "Collectio seu liber extra", i. e. the collection of the laws not contained (vagantes extra) in the "Decretum" of Gratian. Hence the custom of denoting this collection by the letter X (i. e. extra). [/quote]

Time to give it a rest LittleLes.....you are proven wrong. Gregory IX's decretals are what Aquinas was referencing......
[right][snapback]646388[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

I'm aware of all that. But in spite of your extensive URL, you have avoided answering the actual question.

What you need to evidence is that Thomas was using the Gregory IX collection of 1234, AND that the new collection contained a DIFFERENT document than the Gratian Decretals in the false decretals.

Since Thomas died in 1274 and obviously did his writing before his death, it seems highly improbable that there were copied and widely circulated any documents produced in 1234. Remember these had to be handcopied; the printing press was developed in 1450.

I'll await your evidence. But I fear we are getting a bit off the topic.
.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Jul 17 2005, 11:51 AM']I thought that understanding English was a no-brainer Laudate....but alas....we are in LittleLes' world of fun.....he will read this as he wishes, not as it is actually written.  No need to post Newman's defense, I already did.  LittleLes won't address Newman's direct words.
[right][snapback]646390[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

Cardinal Henry Newman On:
The True Notion of Papal Infallibility

"NOW I am to speak of the Vatican definition, by which the doctrine of the Pope's infallibility has become de fide, that is, a truth necessary to be believed, as being included in the original divine revelation, for those terms, revelation, depositum, dogma, and de fide, are correlatives; and I begin with a remark which suggests the drift of all I have to say about it. It is this:—that so difficult a virtue is faith, even with the special grace of God, in proportion as the reason is exercised, so difficult is it to assent inwardly to propositions, verified to us neither by reason nor experience, but depending for their reception on the word of the Church as God's oracle, that she has ever shown the utmost care to contract, as far as possible, the range of truths and the sense of propositions, of which she demands this absolute reception."


It sure doesn't sound like Newman believed in papal infallibility before he was told by the Church that he had to. But by doing so he got to keep his job by agreeing with the boss!

NOTE: "assent inwardly to propositions, verified to us neither by reason nor experience..."

[peach_cube]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 17 2005, 02:47 PM']RESPONSE:

I'm aware of all that. But  in spite of your extensive URL, you have avoided answering the  actual question.

What you need to evidence is that Thomas was using the Gregory IX collection of 1234, AND that the new collection contained a DIFFERENT document than the Gratian Decretals in the false decretals.

Since Thomas died in 1274  and obviously did his writing before his death, it seems highly improbable that there were copied and widely circulated any documents produced in 1234. Remember these had to be handcopied; the printing press was developed in 1450.

I'll await your evidence. But I fear we are getting a bit off the topic.
.
[right][snapback]646428[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Les, St. Thomas taught at the University of Paris, which was also one of the main copy centers in the middle ages. That would leave it as one of the first places to have a copy of the documents.

[Jaime]

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN

The most ironic line of day goes to


[quote]I'll await your evidence. But I fear we are getting a bit off the topic. wink.gif
.[/quote]

[Cam42]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 17 2005, 01:47 PM'][quote]It lies with you, LittleLes.

I have provided links to the Catholic Encyclopedia (which is apparently gospel to you) to support my position.

Are you ready to feel Little.....Les?[/quote]
RESPONSE:

I'm aware of all that. But in spite of your extensive URL, you have avoided answering the actual question.

What you need to evidence is that Thomas was using the Gregory IX collection of 1234, AND that the new collection contained a DIFFERENT document than the Gratian Decretals in the false decretals.

Since Thomas died in 1274 and obviously did his writing before his death, it seems highly improbable that there were copied and widely circulated any documents produced in 1234. Remember these had to be handcopied; the printing press was developed in 1450.

I'll await your evidence. But I fear we are getting a bit off the topic.
.
[right][snapback]646428[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

What are you talking about? It is clear what Aquinas is talking about. Also Aquinas had access, as one of the day's greatest scholastics, to the pertinent documents, unlike you.

Also these Decretals were moreso available to Aquinas, because not only did he teach at the University of Paris, as stated above, but also because Gregory had a great interest in the University of Paris...more evidence?

Keep talking....you will continue to talk yourself right into a hole.

[LittleLes]

Back to the original topic of the charism of infallibility.

I've outlined the events at Vatican I that evidence when it voted for papal infallibility, it was coerced. Thus, the vote would be invalid. It is suppose to be completely free and prompted by the Holy Spirit.

While I'm awaiting any challenge to the information I presented, lets press on with an examination of ex cathedra statements.

The Church has not provided a list of what are to be considerd infallible papal statements, but there is general agreement that at least two meet the criteria: the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception and the Doctrine of the Assumption.

Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus, chapter 4, number 6 proclaims that:

"For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles."

Not "some new doctrine" not found in "revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles"? Let's see.

Where in the New Testament or the deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles do we find any mention of an "assumption" of Mary?

[Cam42]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 17 2005, 02:24 PM']Back to the original topic of the charism of infallibility.

I've outlined the events at Vatican I that evidence  when it voted for papal infallibility, it was coerced. Thus, the vote would be invalid. It is suppose to be completely free and prompted by the Holy Spirit.

While I'm awaiting any challenge to the information I presented, lets press on with an examination of ex cathedra statements.

The Church has not provided a list of what are to be considerd infallible papal statements, but there is general agreement that at least two meet the criteria: the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception and the Doctrine of the Assumption.

Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus, chapter 4, number 6 proclaims that:

"For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles."

Not "some new doctrine" not found in "revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles"? Let's see.

Where in the New Testament  or the deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles do we find any mention of an "assumption" of Mary?
[right][snapback]646457[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

And has been shown.....the outline is corrupt. So, you need to start over. Sorry Charlie.....you have been found wanting, yet again.

[Cam42]

Now we move to the assumption again......



















Will someone please tell LittleLes that "the Sweeps" don't apply to bulletin boards, only television.....and re-runs don't help "the Sweeps."

[LittleLes]

[quote name='peach_cube' date='Jul 17 2005, 01:06 PM']Les, St. Thomas taught at the University of Paris, which was also one of the main copy centers in the middle ages.  That would leave it as one of the first places to have a copy of the documents.
[right][snapback]646446[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

Yes, didn't Thomas teach at the University of Paris from about 1245 to 1250? Yet as late as 1264 in his "Against the Errors of the Greeks" Thomas is still quoting from the false decretals. So evidently Paris didn't provide him with a copy of Gregory IX's collection.

What CAM needs to establish is that (1) Aquinas was using the Decretals of Gregory IX in his Summa, and (2) that the quotation Thomas cites is from that collection and not from the 1151 Gratian Decretum.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Jul 17 2005, 01:35 PM']And has been shown.....the outline is corrupt.  So, you need to start over.  Sorry Charlie.....you have been found wanting, yet again.
[right][snapback]646466[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


RESPONSE:

"Has been shown..." Really? When? And by whom?

Please provide your evidence that my outline of the events at Vatican I is in error. I thought I provided enough references to keep you happy.

Please be precise and list which of my statements is in error.

Or do you plan to claim "corrupt" without any evidence to support your assertion?

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Jul 17 2005, 01:36 PM']Now we move to the assumption again......

[/quote]

RESPONSE:

Yes, the evidence just won't go away, will it?

Looking forward to your rebuttal.

[Cam42]

I have provided enough proof. You need to rebut. However, you can't......enough said.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Jul 17 2005, 02:28 PM']I have provided enough proof.  You need to rebut.  However, you can't......enough said.
[right][snapback]646505[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

Please tell us which of the ten facts about the election at Vatican I quoted from Fr. Bokenkotters "The Concise History of the Catholic Church" (I cited about half a dozen additional references) which you have disproven?

Claiming that you have proven something when you haven't even attempted to suggests you believe the readership is very gullible.

LittleLes

[Cam42]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 17 2005, 08:27 PM']RESPONSE:

Please tell us which of the ten facts about the election at Vatican I quoted from  Fr. Bokenkotters  "The Concise History of the Catholic Church" (I cited about half a dozen additional references) which you have disproven?

Claiming that you have proven something when you haven't even attempted to suggests you believe the readership is very gullible.

LittleLes
[right][snapback]646794[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Not interested in your rhetoric. We know the truth about your trolling habits...incidentally, you have not cited one.

[Socrates]

[quote]RESPONSE:

Please tell us which of the ten facts about the election at Vatican I quoted from Fr. Bokenkotters "The Concise History of the Catholic Church" (I cited about half a dozen additional references) which you have disproven?

Claiming that you have proven something when you haven't even attempted to suggests you believe the readership is very gullible.

LittleLes[/quote]
Thus far, for all your ramblings, you haven't given a single fact which proves Papal Infallibility wrong.

And furthermore, since you reject the Church's teaching authority, why should any of this even matter to you?

Why belong to the Catholic Church in first place, LittleLes, since you don't beleive in it or agree with it? There's plenty of other churches out there, and you're free to belong to no church at all. Why is this all such a huge deal for you?

Edited July 18, 2005 by Socrates

[LittleLes]

(1)Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus, chapter 4, number 6 proclaims that:

"For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles."


(2) There is no explicit mention of the Assumption in the New Testament.

(3) This from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

"The belief in the corporeal assumption of Mary is founded on the apocryphal treatise De Obitu S. Dominae, bearing the name of St. John, which belongs however to the fourth or fifth century. It is also found in the book De Transitu Virginis, falsely ascribed to St. Melito of Sardis, and in a spurious letter attributed to St. Denis the Areopagite. If we consult genuine writings in the East, it is mentioned in the sermons of St. Andrew of Crete, St. John Damascene, St. Modestus of Jerusalem and others. In the West, St. Gregory of Tours (De gloria mart., I, iv) mentions it first. The sermons of St. Jerome and St. Augustine for this feast, however, are spurious. St. John of Damascus (P. G., I, 96) thus formulates the tradition of the Church of Jerusalem: "

St Andrew of Crete 660-740
St John Damascene 676-754
St Modestus of Jerusalem c 631
St. Gregory of Tours 538-594

So the first mention of the Assumption is in a "apocryphal " treatise belonging to the fourth of fifth century and other false writings. It is first founfd in the writings of the Fathers menioned above and the dates.

So there is no mention in scripture and the story doesn't start till the fourth or fifth century as a pious legend.

Hardly the deposit of faith. It's therefore a "new" doctrine.

LittleLes

[Socrates]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 17 2005, 07:52 PM'](1)Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus, chapter 4, number 6 proclaims that:

"For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles."
(2) There is no explicit mention of the Assumption in the New Testament.

(3) This from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

"The belief in the corporeal assumption of Mary is founded on the apocryphal treatise De Obitu S. Dominae, bearing the name of St. John, which belongs however to the fourth or fifth century. It is also found in the book De Transitu Virginis, falsely ascribed to St. Melito of Sardis, and in a spurious letter attributed to St. Denis the Areopagite. If we consult genuine writings in the East, it is mentioned in the sermons of St. Andrew of Crete, St. John Damascene, St. Modestus of Jerusalem and others. In the West, St. Gregory of Tours (De gloria mart., I, iv) mentions it first. The sermons of St. Jerome and St. Augustine for this feast, however, are spurious. St. John of Damascus (P. G., I, 96) thus formulates the tradition of the Church of Jerusalem: "

St Andrew of Crete 660-740
St John Damascene 676-754
St Modestus of Jerusalem c 631
St. Gregory of Tours 538-594

So the first mention of the Assumption is in a "apocryphal " treatise belonging to the fourth of fifth century and other false writings. It is first founfd in the writings of the Fathers menioned above and the dates.

So there is no mention in scripture and the story doesn't start till the fourth or fifth century as a pious legend.

Hardly the deposit of faith. It's  therefore a "new" doctrine.

LittleLes
[right][snapback]646814[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

You've again proven absolutely nothing here. Catholics are not "Sola Scriptura." Mary's Assumption was part of the oral tradition of the Church. For details on this, go to [url="http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0105sbs.asp"]this article.[/url].

I will quote the end of the above-cited article in answer to your false assertion that this doctrine is founded entirely on apocryphal documents.
The Church fathers made reference to this belief much earlier:

[quote]The Church Fathers provide a much more balanced approach. Epiphanius said in A.D. 377, "Let them search the scriptures. They will not find Mary's death; they will not find whether she died or did not die; they will not find whether she was buried or was not buried. More than that: John journeyed to Asia, yet nowhere do we read that he took the holy Virgin with him. Rather, Scripture is absolutely silent [on Mary's earthly end] because of the extraordinary nature of the prodigy, in order not to shock the minds of men. . . . Neither do I maintain stoutly that she died. . . .

"Did she die? We do not know. At all events, if she was buried, she had no carnal intercourse. . . . Or she remained alive, since nothing is impossible with God and he can do whatever he desires" (Panarion, haer. 78, nn. 10-11,23: G.C.S., 37, 461-462; 474).

Neither Jerome, Origen, Athanasius, Ambrose, nor Augustine contested Epiphanius in what he had written regarding Mary's miraculous passing, and Ephraem (d. 373) described Mary as having been glorified by Christ and carried through the air to heaven (Cf. Ephraem, De nativitate domini sermo 12, sermo 11, sermo 4; Opera omni syriace at latine, Vol. 2, 415). Throughout history, there have been very few opponents in the Church of Mary's Assumption. No one seemed ready to claim that she corrupted. In fact, the first opposition to the Assumption cannot be found until Ambrosius Autpertus of the eighth century.

From this faith of the Church, Christians began to celebrate the feast of Mary's unique passing. Like the fruit from a tree, the liturgy is the result of doctrine, not the source of it. By the end of the fourth century, the feast of the Dormitio or Koimesis, which celebrated Mary's death, resurrection, and Assumption, was celebrated throughout the East. A feast celebrating Mary's entrance to heaven, "The Memory of Mary," also began around the fourth century. The significance of these early feasts cannot be overlooked, as they are testimony to the truths that the Church knew to be true. Christians would not initiate feasts throughout the Church that were ideas on the fringes of Catholic thought.

One reason why it is difficult to assess where Mary's last days were is because she left no remains. The early Church prized the relics of early Christians, as can be seen by reading The Martyrdom of Polycarp. However, no one claimed to have Mary's remains, which would have been prized above all others. There is no historical reference to the relics of Mary, the corruption of Mary, or the place where her body lies. A skeptic who denies Christ's Resurrection should be asked to find evidence of the remains of Christ, and the same challenge can be extended to whoever denies Mary's Assumption.[/quote]

When this doctrine was formally defined, it was hardly "inventing" a new dogma, but merely confirming as true, an ancient tradition which is in no was contradictory to the deposit of faith.

[Socrates]

Does anyone else find LittleLes' logical flip-flops amusing? Sometimes he comes on like a Sola-Scriptura Biblical Fundamentalist ("Where's it say that in the Bible?"), then rejects the truth of the Bible whenever it is used against him.

His only point of consistency is that according to him, the Church is always wrong. (an odd view for a self-proclaimed "Catholic," don't you think?)

[Cam42]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Jul 17 2005, 09:13 PM']Does anyone else find LittleLes' logical flip-flops amusing?  Sometimes he comes on like a Sola-Scriptura Biblical Fundamentalist  ("Where's it say that in the Bible?"), then rejects the truth of the Bible whenever it is used against him.

His only point of consistency is that according to him, the Church is always wrong.  (an odd view for a self-proclaimed "Catholic," don't you think?)
[right][snapback]646837[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

While one can't help but laugh, it is quite frustrating.....the intellectual dishonesty, the lack of scholarship, the games, the utter stupidity, these things are not funny. It is quite sad that he thinks that he is effecting anyone or affecting a change in the beliefs of those here at phatmass.



















Kilroy, we already debated Pastor Aeternus. Can we shut this thread down now? Papal infallibility has been beaten to death....