Hi all,

Papal Infallibility was formally stated for the first time on July 18th 1870. Was this a formal statement of a previously existing and accepted fact or a reaction to Modernist thought, Darwin and Luther?

Thanks everyone.

-- Sharon (sharon.guy@ntu.ac.uk), July 06, 2004

Answers

Bump...

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), July 06, 2004.

This statement by the First Vatican Council was a formal definition of that which had existed in the Church since Christ told Simon Peter "whatsoever you bind upon earth is bound in heaven". Naturally, the full understanding of this essential charism took some time to develop, and the Church of the 19th century understood it far more completely than the Church of the first century, as is true of every doctrinal issue. However, Vatican I didn't introduce anything new doctrinally. It only confirmed in precise terms what had been recognized from the beginning, as evidenced by the many references among the early Church Fathers to the Bishop of Rome or the Successor of Peter as the final authority.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), July 06, 2004.

Unfortunately, the doctrine of papal infallibility is misrepresented and misunderstood by many inside and outside the Church.

There has to be some authority that definitively says, the buck stops here, here is the final word on this doctrinal argument. That's the Pope. He has no one else to look to on earth.

We all have the Holy Spirit to guide us, but when it comes to the final word on something so controversial that the Pope must make a decision, he's the man. That's all papal infallibility is.

Where the mistakes occur, in my opinion, is on the issue of institutional infallibility. There is no such thing. Those within the institution and the institution as a whole are human instuments that can and have made mistakes.

Now, the institution should be honored, prayed for, and followed with great diligence, but the institution is a degree below the infallibility mark.

Only a Pope can speak ex cathedra, the institutional church cannot.

God bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), July 06, 2004.

Thanks for that chaps! More questions may follow - and while I may not always believe you to be right i shall listen and learn with respect for you and your Church.

Thanks again!

Sharon.

-- Sharon (sharon.guy@ntu.ac.uk), July 07, 2004.

Sharon,

Was this a formal statement of a previously existing and accepted fact or a reaction to Modernist thought, Darwin and Luther?

Both

and while I may not always believe you to be right i shall listen and learn with respect for you and your Church

In order to reject the single unified authority of the Church, Martin Luther had to replace this with something. He used Scripture. So I will take a guess, tell me if I'm wrong, that you are a non-Catholic bible-only Christian?

If so, you are trying to choose between the pope or the bible as your authority. It's Pope vs. Sola Scriptura. It may help if you considered the giant holes in the Sola Scriptura belief. Here is one:

1 Thess 2:13 "And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers." RSV

Here Paul tells us in Sacred Scripture, that the "Word of God" comes from the mouth of the ordained Church leadership in oral form. God uses certain men who express their own word which is to be taken as if it were flowing from the very mouth of God himself.

Thus the voice of that One Church, which is anointed by God, has equal weight to Scripture. Scripture is not contradicted. And as any reasoning person might suspect, all Scripture flows through that very same anointed Church.

-- Mike H. (mikeh@hotmail.com), July 07, 2004.

Hi Mike,

I am an Anglican -born and baptised. I believe God speaks to all His children including the pope, through the Bible, through learned and wise people (including the pope!) and through the everyday. I am not here to be converted but to learn about the Church from whom much of Anglicanism was born. Usually when people ask I say I am a Christian - my denomination being secondary to my faith in Christ.

I want to learn because ignorance breeds hate and intolerance and that is not healthy. My first reactions to some bits of Catholic thought and belief may be to say 'but thats mad/bogus/stupid. So what am I to do about it? I can hold on to my first reactions and become a Catholic hater or I can learn more about the what, how and why of Catholic belief and try to learn with an open mind. I choose the second option.

I doubt at this point whether I can be 'won for Catholicism' my biggest obstacle being my vocation to the priesthood - which I am in the process of testing. Being female this is not going to be recognised if I switch denominations. Like many I long for unity amongst all Christians - I still believe in miracles!!

I have found here that even if you disagree with a point of view people will patiently and generously explain if you remain civil and respectful. I thank you for that.

So please don't try to convert me - just answer my questions honestly and respect my right not to agree. God has the power to speak to you and I am fairly intelligent - if it is Gods will that I convert it will happen! (I don't think it is at the moment though!!)

Thanks again everyone.

-- Sharon (sharon.guy@ntu.ac.uk), July 08, 2004.