New Pope Elected

[kallend 2,175]

Quote

The court that ruled in Dredd Scott still exists. Do you think it (the court) should be abolished?

The party responsible for nominating a KKK member (Hugo Black) to the supreme court still exists - should it be disbanded?

There is a former KKK member serving in the Senate today. Should his votes be considered null and void? His seat vacated?

After all, the above three happened far more recently than the Inquisition.

The court has been effectively eliminated, the precedent was overturned. Equivalent to an apology. The Roman church has never apologized for the Inquisition.

I shall not be sad to see Byrd out of the Senate, the guy is an asshole.

We need to remember Dredd Scott. We need to remember the holocaust, and we need to remember the Inquistion.


However, if you really want to discuss the evils of slavery and how the slave states morphed into "red" states, and where the KKK flourished, start your own thread.

PS you're wrong about the dates. the office of the Inquisition existed long after Dredd Scott was overturned.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[sinker 0]

The Roman church has never apologized for the Inquisition.

Quote

You keep saying that... but as I've said before, Pope John Paul II DID apologize...

PS you're wrong about the dates. the office of the inquisition existed long after Dredd Scott was overturned.***

and it still exists, as you know, under the name The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The Inquisition, as a discreet period of time, with all of its abuses and murders, has not existed for hundreds of years. And, you should know, that NAME of the office, "inquisition", really means, a public legal proceeding—a trial. The diligent inquiry was thus a legal inquiry—an inquisition. Its purpose was to protect the person accused of practicing a false religion, to make sure he really had committed the crime in question.

Kallend, here below is the text of an article found on a Catholic web site... it should provide you w/ some good reading... I know it doesn't fit w/ YOU per se, since you are FAR from being a fundamentalists christian, but still it's some good food for thought...


The Inquisition


Sooner or later, any discussion of apologetics with Fundamentalists will address the Inquisition. To non-Catholics it is a scandal; to Catholics, an embarrassment; to both, a confusion. It is a handy stick for Catholic-bashing, simply because most Catholics seem at a loss for a sensible reply. This tract will set the record straight.

There have actually been several different inquisitions. The first was established in 1184 in southern France as a response to the Catharist heresy. This was known as the Medieval Inquisition, and it was phased out as Catharism disappeared.

Quite separate was the Roman Inquisition, begun in 1542. It was the least active and most benign of the three variations.

Separate again was the infamous Spanish Inquisition, started in 1478, a state institution used to identify conversos—Jews and Moors (Muslims) who pretended to convert to Christianity for purposes of political or social advantage and secretly practiced their former religion. More importantly, its job was also to clear the good names of many people who were falsely accused of being heretics. It was the Spanish Inquisition that, at least in the popular imagination, had the worst record of fulfilling these duties.

The various inquisitions stretched through the better part of a millennia, and can collectively be called "the Inquisition."


The Main Sources



Fundamentalists writing about the Inquisition rely on books by Henry C. Lea (1825–1909) and G. G. Coulton (1858–1947). Each man got most of the facts right, and each made progress in basic research, so proper credit should not be denied them. The problem is that they did not weigh facts well, because they harbored fierce animosity toward the Church—animosity that had little to do with the Inquisition itself.

The contrary problem has not been unknown. A few Catholic writers, particularly those less interested in digging for truth than in diffusing a criticism of the Church, have glossed over incontrovertible facts and tried to whitewash the Inquisition. This is as much a disservice to the truth as an exaggeration of the Inquisition’s bad points. These well-intentioned, but misguided, apologists are, in one respect, much like Lea, Coulton, and contemporary Fundamentalist writers. They fear, while the others hope, that the facts about the Inquisition might prove the illegitimacy of the Catholic Church.


Don’t Fear the Facts



But the facts fail to do that. The Church has nothing to fear from the truth. No account of foolishness, misguided zeal, or cruelty by Catholics can undo the divine foundation of the Church, though, admittedly, these things are stumbling blocks to Catholics and non-Catholics alike.

What must be grasped is that the Church contains within itself all sorts of sinners and knaves, and some of them obtain positions of responsibility. Paul and Christ himself warned us that there would be a few ravenous wolves among Church leaders (Acts 20:29; Matt. 7:15).

Fundamentalists suffer from the mistaken notion that the Church includes only the elect. For them, sinners are outside the doors. Locate sinners, and you locate another place where the Church is not.

Thinking that Fundamentalists might have a point in their attacks on the Inquisition, Catholics tend to be defensive. This is the wrong attitude; rather, we should learn what really happened, understand events in light of the times, and then explain to anti-Catholics why the sorry tale does not prove what they think it proves.


Phony Statistics



Many Fundamentalists believe, for instance, that more people died under the Inquisition than in any war or plague; but in this they rely on phony "statistics" generated by one-upmanship among anti-Catholics, each of whom, it seems, tries to come up with the largest number of casualties.

But trying to straighten out such historical confusions can take one only so far. As Ronald Knox put it, we should be cautious, "lest we should wander interminably in a wilderness of comparative atrocity statistics." In fact, no one knows exactly how many people perished through the various Inquisitions. We can determine for certain, though, one thing about numbers given by Fundamentalists: They are far too large. One book popular with Fundamentalists claims that 95 million people died under the Inquisition.

The figure is so grotesquely off that one immediately doubts the writer’s sanity, or at least his grasp of demographics. Not until modern times did the population of those countries where the Inquisitions existed approach 95 million.

Inquisitions did not exist in Northern Europe, Eastern Europe, Scandinavia, or England, being confined mainly to southern France, Italy, Spain, and a few parts of the Holy Roman Empire. The Inquisition could not have killed that many people because those parts of Europe did not have that many people to kill!

Furthermore, the plague, which killed a third of Europe’s population, is credited by historians with major changes in the social structure. The Inquisition is credited with few—precisely because the number of its victims was comparitively small. In fact, recent studies indicate that at most there were only a few thousand capital sentences carried out for heresy in Spain, and these were over the course of several centuries.


What’s the Point?



Ultimately, it may be a waste of time arguing about statistics. Instead, ask Fundamentalists just what they think the existence of the Inquisition demonstrates. They would not bring it up in the first place unless they thought it proves something about the Catholic Church. And what is that something? That Catholics are sinners? Guilty as charged. That at times people in positions of authority have used poor judgment? Ditto. That otherwise good Catholics, afire with zeal, sometimes lose their balance? All true, but such charges could be made even if the Inquisition had never existed and perhaps could be made of some Fundamentalists.

Fundamentalist writers claim the existence of the Inquisition proves the Catholic Church could not be the Church founded by our Lord. They use the Inquisition as a good—perhaps their best—bad example. They think this shows that the Catholic Church is illegitimate. At first blush it might seem so, but there is only so much mileage in a ploy like that; most people see at once that the argument is weak. One reason Fundamentalists talk about the Inquisition is that they take it as a personal attack, imagining it was established to eliminate (yes, you guessed it) the Fundamentalists themselves.


Not "Bible Christians"



They identify themselves with the Catharists (also known as the Albigensians), or perhaps it is better to say they identify the Catharists with themselves. They think the Catharists were twelfth-century Fundamentalists and that Catholics did to them what they would do to Fundamentalists today if they had the political strength they once had.

This is a fantasy. Fundamentalist writers take one point—that Catharists used a vernacular version of the Bible—and conclude from it that these people were "Bible Christians." In fact, theirs was a curious religion that apparently (no one knows for certain) came to France from what is now Bulgaria. Catharism was a blend of Gnosticism, which claimed to have access to a secret source of religious knowledge, and of Manichaeism, which said matter is evil. The Catharists believed in two gods: the "good" God of the New Testament, who sent Jesus to save our souls from being trapped in matter; and the "evil" God of the Old Testament, who created the material world in the first place. The Catharists’ beliefs entailed serious—truly civilization-destroying—social consequences.

Marriage was scorned because it legitimized sexual relations, which Catharists identified as the Original Sin. But fornication was permitted because it was temporary, secret, and was not generally approved of; while marriage was permanent, open, and publicly sanctioned.

The ramifications of such theories are not hard to imagine. In addition, ritualistic suicide was encouraged (those who would not take their own lives were frequently "helped" along), and Catharists refused to take oaths, which, in a feudal society, meant they opposed all governmental authority. Thus, Catharism was both a moral and a political danger.

Even Lea, so strongly opposed to the Catholic Church, admitted: "The cause of orthodoxy was the cause of progress and civilization. Had Catharism become dominant, or even had it been allowed to exist on equal terms, its influence could not have failed to become disastrous." Whatever else might be said about Catharism, it was certainly not the same as modern Fundamentalism, and Fundamentalist sympathy for this destructive belief system is sadly misplaced.


The Real Point



Many discussions about the Inquisition get bogged down in numbers and many Catholics fail to understand what Fundamentalists are really driving at. As a result, Catholics restrict themselves to secondary matters. Instead, they should force the Fundamentalists to say explicitly what they are trying to prove.

However, there is a certain utility—though a decidedly limited one—in demonstrating that the kinds and degrees of punishments inflicted by the Spanish Inquisition were similar to (actually, even lighter than) those meted out by secular courts. It is equally true that, despite what we consider the Spanish Inquisition’s lamentable procedures, many people preferred to have their cases tried by ecclesiastical courts because the secular courts had even fewer safeguards. In fact, historians have found records of people blaspheming in secular courts of the period so they could have their case transferred to an ecclesiastical court, where they would get a better hearing.

The crucial thing for Catholics, once they have obtained some appreciation of the history of the Inquisition, is to explain how such an institution could have been associated with a divinely established Church and why it is not proper to conclude, from the existence of the Inquisition, that the Catholic Church is not the Church of Christ. This is the real point at issue, and this is where any discussion should focus.

To that end, it is helpful to point out that it is easy to see how those who led the Inquisitions could think their actions were justified. The Bible itself records instances where God commanded that formal, legal inquiries—that is, inquisitions—be carried out to expose secret believers in false religions. In Deuteronomy 17:2–5 God said: "If there is found among you, within any of your towns which the Lord your God gives you, a man or woman who does what is evil in the sight of the Lord your God, in transgressing his covenant, and has gone and served other gods and worshiped them, or the sun or the moon or any of the host of heaven, which I have forbidden, and it is told you and you hear of it; then you shall inquire diligently [note that phrase: "inquire diligently"], and if it is true and certain that such an abominable thing has been done in Israel, then you shall bring forth to your gates that man or woman who has done this evil thing, and you shall stone that man or woman to death with stones."

It is clear that there were some Israelites who posed as believers in and keepers of the covenant with Yahweh, while inwardly they did not believe and secretly practiced false religions, and even tried to spread them (cf. Deut. 13:6–11). To protect the kingdom from such hidden heresy, these secret practitioners of false religions had to be rooted out and expelled from the community. This directive from the Lord applied even to whole cities that turned away from the true religion (Deut. 13:12–18). Like Israel, medieval Europe was a society of Christian kingdoms that were formally consecrated to the Lord Jesus Christ. It is therefore quite understandable that these Catholics would read their Bibles and conclude that for the good of their Christian society they, like the Israelites before them, "must purge the evil from the midst of you" (Deut. 13:5, 17:7, 12). Paul repeats this principle in 1 Corinthians 5:13.

These same texts were interpreted similarly by the first Protestants, who also tried to root out and punish those they regarded as heretics. Luther and Calvin both endorsed the right of the state to protect society by purging false religion. In fact, Calvin not only banished from Geneva those who did not share his views, he permitted and in some cases ordered others to be executed for "heresy" (e.g. Jacques Gouet, tortured and beheaded in 1547; and Michael Servetus, burned at the stake in 1553). In England and Ireland, Reformers engaged in their own ruthless inquisitions and executions. Conservative estimates indicate that thousands of English and Irish Catholics were put to death—many by being hanged, drawn, and quartered—for practicing the Catholic faith and refusing to become Protestant. An even greater number were forced to flee to the Continent for their safety. We point this out to show that the situation was a two-way street; and both sides easily understood the Bible to require the use of penal sanctions to root out false religion from Christian society.

The fact that the Protestant Reformers also created inquisitions to root out Catholics and others who did not fall into line with the doctrines of the local Protestant sect shows that the existence of an inquisition does not prove that a movement is not of God. Protestants cannot make this claim against Catholics without having it backfire on themselves. Neither can Catholics make such a charge against Protestants. The truth of a particular system of belief must be decided on other grounds.

-the artist formerly known as sinker

[kallend 2,175]

Quote

The Roman church has never apologized for the Inquisition.***

You keep saying that... but as I've said before, Pope John Paul II DID apologize...

.

Pope JPII did not admit that the church was at fault. The church continues to claim that it cannot be in error. He apologized on behalf of the errors of some of its members. Not the same thing at all.


PS nice bit of RC propaganda. You might note that I have only claimed tens of thousands murdered by RC genocide, not tens of millions. And the tortures are very well documented historically - you can even find the instruments in museums.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

The church continues to claim that it cannot be in error.

The Catholic Church claims that it cannot be wrong? Really? That certainly wouldn't hold to Biblical teaching.

[TheAnvil 0]

My goodness Kallend! You answered one of several questions! What a marvelous start!

Your answer does intrigue me.

The Court effectively eliminated? Hmm...odd...I think not. I think SCOTUS is still functioning quite well.

So overturning a precedent equates to an apology, eh? Hmmm...the last time you saw the Roman Church condoning torture as in the Spanish Inquisition was...when, exactly? By looking at the Church's doctrine since the Spanish Inquisition one can easily discern that the torture done during the Inquisition is 180 degrees out from what the Church today endorses. Hmmm...no apology necessary in Kallend's World for an overturned precedent as horrible as Dredd Scott but for the Roman Church its required by Kallend for whatever reason. Hmmm...I really don't follow. Perhaps you can help us out with that.

Now as to the other queries I posed you - I eagerly await your responses.

The office of the Inquisition still does exist. Just like the SCOTUS that handed down Dredd Scott. Just like the Democratic Party that supported a KKK member for SCOTUS. All three still exist today - you're only bashing one of the three aforementioned. You obviously have a reason for doing so - do you mind enlightening us as to what that is, exactly?

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[kallend 2,175]

Quote

My goodness Kallend! You answered one of several questions! What a marvelous start!

Your answer does intrigue me.

The Court effectively eliminated? Hmm...odd...I think not. I think SCOTUS is still functioning quite well.

So overturning a precedent equates to an apology, eh? Hmmm...the last time you saw the Roman Church condoning torture as in the Spanish Inquisition was...when, exactly? By looking at the Church's doctrine since the Spanish Inquisition one can easily discern that the torture done during the Inquisition is 180 degrees out from what the Church today endorses. Hmmm...no apology necessary in Kallend's World for an overturned precedent as horrible as Dredd Scott but for the Roman Church its required by Kallend for whatever reason. Hmmm...I really don't follow. Perhaps you can help us out with that.

Now as to the other queries I posed you - I eagerly await your responses.

The office of the Inquisition still does exist. Just like the SCOTUS that handed down Dredd Scott. Just like the Democratic Party that supported a KKK member for SCOTUS. All three still exist today - you're only bashing one of the three aforementioned. You obviously have a reason for doing so - do you mind enlightening us as to what that is, exactly?

Start an appropriate thread on the topic of slavery and how the KKK flourished in what became the red states. It will be interesting.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,175]

Quote

Quote

The church continues to claim that it cannot be in error.

The Catholic Church claims that it cannot be wrong? Really? That certainly wouldn't hold to Biblical teaching.

From the Roman church itself:

"Christ instructed the Church to preach everything he taught (Matt. 28:19–20) and promised the protection of the Holy Spirit to "guide you into all the truth" (John 16:13). That mandate and that promise guarantee the Church will never fall away from his teachings (Matt. 16:18, 1 Tim. 3:15), even if individual Catholics might.

"As Christians began to more clearly understand the teaching authority of the Church and of the primacy of the pope, they developed a clearer understanding of the pope’s infallibility. This development of the faithful’s understanding has its clear beginnings in the early Church. For example, Cyprian of Carthage, writing about 256, put the question this way, "Would the heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" (Letters 59 [55], 14). In the fifth century, Augustine succinctly captured the ancient attitude when he remarked, "Rome has spoken; the case is concluded" (Sermons 131, 10). "

And

"All this was accomplished through the apostolic succession of bishops, and the preservation of the Christian message, in its fullness, was guaranteed through the gift of infallibility, of the Church as a whole, but mainly through its Christ-appointed leaders, the bishops (as a whole) and the pope (as an individual).

"It is the Holy Spirit who prevents the pope from officially teaching error, and this charism follows necessarily from the existence of the Church itself. If, as Christ promised, the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church then it must be protected from fundamentally falling into error and thus away from Christ. It must prove itself to be a perfectly steady guide in matters pertaining to salvation."

NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004

IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

From the Roman church itself:

"Christ instructed the Church to preach everything he taught (Matt. 28:19–20) and promised the protection of the Holy Spirit to "guide you into all the truth" (John 16:13). That mandate and that promise guarantee the Church will never fall away from his teachings (Matt. 16:18, 1 Tim. 3:15), even if individual Catholics might.

"As Christians began to more clearly understand the teaching authority of the Church and of the primacy of the pope, they developed a clearer understanding of the pope’s infallibility. This development of the faithful’s understanding has its clear beginnings in the early Church. For example, Cyprian of Carthage, writing about 256, put the question this way, "Would the heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" (Letters 59 [55], 14). In the fifth century, Augustine succinctly captured the ancient attitude when he remarked, "Rome has spoken; the case is concluded" (Sermons 131, 10). "

Most of the first part of Revelation is concerned with rebuking early churches that strayed from the teachings of Christ. Also, just because you may have the Holy Spirit as a guide doesn’t mean you have to follow it. Just because Jesus gave certain instructions doesn’t mean that the church always carries it out. The church is made up of fallible people with their own free will and capability to choose whatever meets their innate selfish desires. I believe the Pope is just as human as you and me and is also very capable of making mistakes. The Catholic Church as a whole is also capable of making mistakes as was illustrated in Revelation. Unless, the Catholic Church thinks it is better than all of its predecessors. If the Catholic Church believes that it is infallible then that is yet another reason why I am not Catholic.

[kallend 2,175]

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Uh..ohhh... That kind of scares me a little bit.

I saw a guy at the Vatican on the news the day the Pope was selected. He was asked why he was so exited. He said that they had a new Pope and that the Pope serves in the capacity of Jesus Christ on Earth. That came across as incredibly arrogant to me to think that any person (Pope included) could even come close. He might have meant that the Pope is simply the leader of the church just like Jesus was. However, that would only apply to the Catholic Church. They don’t speak for all Christians and they aren’t the source. The Holy Spirit is a "counselor.” It doesn’t make you perfect. The Pope may be a very righteous man but he is still just as human as the rest of us.

[kallend 2,175]

Quote

Quote

Uh..ohhh... That kind of scares me a little bit.

.

Hey, I'm a really scary kind of a guy. Ask anyone that knows me.

I think you are now understanding what I've been trying to get across in this thread.

That an organization claiming perpetual freedom from error for itself has sanctioned mass murder is REALLY scary.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[TheAnvil 0]

Dodging again, I see. You're quite adept at that.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[sinker 0]

That an organization claiming perpetual freedom from error for itself has sanctioned mass murder is REALLY scary. ***

your FUNDAMENTAL misunderstanding is that the Church claims freedome from error regarding matters of FAITH and MORALS ONLY. Was it wrong during the Inquisition? Most definately. Has it admitted it? For the 1,000th time, yes. "Officially sanctioning murder"... again, you fail in answering any question that Vinny and I posed about KKK, Nazism, Dread Scott, etc. Your BS response about the court overturning ergo apology is assinine.

And JP II DID apologize for the sins of the Church. He did it several times. YOU WILL NOT CONCEDE the matter inspite of evidence to the contrary. Shear obstinancy. Vinny, bring out the Iron Maiden but dust it off first...

You're hopelessly stuck in the past and I, for one, am tired of wasting valuable energy on you. Your failure to forgive the Church yet exonerate the people of your own political belief system is hypocritical at best.

Remember what Napolean said? He vowed to destroy the Church! A cardinal turned to him and smirked saying, "Yeah right. We've been trying to do it for centuries and even WE haven't succeeded. What makes you so different?" The Church is saying that to you, kallend.

BillVon even chimed in and spoke of some of the virtues of Mother Church. Take the blinders off kallend...

Catholics reading this should pray to our Lord for the conversion of kallend, for the softening of his heart towards the Church and Her servants. It really can make a difference.

-the artist formerly known as sinker

[sinker 0]

PS nice bit of RC propaganda.***

i should have known better than to think you could have read that w/ even an ounce of suspended disbelief. i'm such a hopeless optimist. you'd probably refute every single piece of literature I send your way, so I guess it's futile. Only thing left is to pray for you... enlightenment may come...

(and I don't mean to sound condescending, I really don't...)

-the artist formerly known as sinker

[sinker 0]

Quote

Start an appropriate thread on the topic of slavery and how the KKK flourished in what became the red states. It will be interesting.

more dodging... more avoiding... more change of topic...

-the artist formerly known as sinker

[sinker 0]

answering the common objection that the Catholic Church claims infallibility regarding matters of faith and morals... (I'm not asking for YOUR belief as to whether the Church is right here, but just read and ponder w/o predjudice if possible...)


From Catholic.com...

Papal Infallibility


The Catholic Church’s teaching on papal infallibility is one which is generally misunderstood by those outside the Church. In particular, Fundamentalists and other "Bible Christians" often confuse the charism of papal "infallibility" with "impeccability." They imagine Catholics believe the pope cannot sin. Others, who avoid this elementary blunder, think the pope relies on some sort of amulet or magical incantation when an infallible definition is due.

Given these common misapprehensions regarding the basic tenets of papal infallibility, it is necessary to explain exactly what infallibility is not. Infallibility is not the absence of sin. Nor is it a charism that belongs only to the pope. Indeed, infallibility also belongs to the body of bishops as a whole, when, in doctrinal unity with the pope, they solemnly teach a doctrine as true. We have this from Jesus himself, who promised the apostles and their successors the bishops, the magisterium of the Church: "He who hears you hears me" (Luke 10:16), and "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven" (Matt. 18:18).


Vatican II’s Explanation



Vatican II explained the doctrine of infallibility as follows: "Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they can nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly. This is so, even when they are dispersed around the world, provided that while maintaining the bond of unity among themselves and with Peter’s successor, and while teaching authentically on a matter of faith or morals, they concur in a single viewpoint as the one which must be held conclusively. This authority is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church. Their definitions must then be adhered to with the submission of faith" (Lumen Gentium 25).

Infallibility belongs in a special way to the pope as head of the bishops (Matt. 16:17–19; John 21:15–17). As Vatican II remarked, it is a charism the pope "enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith (Luke 22:32), he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals. Therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly held irreformable, for they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, an assistance promised to him in blessed Peter."

The infallibility of the pope is not a doctrine that suddenly appeared in Church teaching; rather, it is a doctrine which was implicit in the early Church. It is only our understanding of infallibility which has developed and been more clearly understood over time. In fact, the doctrine of infallibility is implicit in these Petrine texts: John 21:15–17 ("Feed my sheep . . . "), Luke 22:32 ("I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail"), and Matthew 16:18 ("You are Peter . . . ").


Based on Christ’s Mandate



Christ instructed the Church to preach everything he taught (Matt. 28:19–20) and promised the protection of the Holy Spirit to "guide you into all the truth" (John 16:13). That mandate and that promise guarantee the Church will never fall away from his teachings (Matt. 16:18, 1 Tim. 3:15), even if individual Catholics might.

As Christians began to more clearly understand the teaching authority of the Church and of the primacy of the pope, they developed a clearer understanding of the pope’s infallibility. This development of the faithful’s understanding has its clear beginnings in the early Church. For example, Cyprian of Carthage, writing about 256, put the question this way, "Would the heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" (Letters 59 [55], 14). In the fifth century, Augustine succinctly captured the ancient attitude when he remarked, "Rome has spoken; the case is concluded" (Sermons 131, 10).


Some Clarifications



An infallible pronouncement—whether made by the pope alone or by an ecumenical council—usually is made only when some doctrine has been called into question. Most doctrines have never been doubted by the large majority of Catholics.

Pick up a catechism and look at the great number of doctrines, most of which have never been formally defined. But many points have been defined, and not just by the pope alone. There are, in fact, many major topics on which it would be impossible for a pope to make an infallible definition without duplicating one or more infallible pronouncements from ecumenical councils or the ordinary magisterium (teaching authority) of the Church.

At least the outline, if not the references, of the preceding paragraphs should be familiar to literate Catholics, to whom this subject should appear straightforward. It is a different story with "Bible Christians." For them papal infallibility often seems a muddle because their idea of what it encompasses is often incorrect.

Some ask how popes can be infallible if some of them lived scandalously. This objection of course, illustrates the common confusion between infallibility and impeccability. There is no guarantee that popes won’t sin or give bad example. (The truly remarkable thing is the great degree of sanctity found in the papacy throughout history; the "bad popes" stand out precisely because they are so rare.)

Other people wonder how infallibility could exist if some popes disagreed with others. This, too, shows an inaccurate understanding of infallibility, which applies only to solemn, official teachings on faith and morals, not to disciplinary decisions or even to unofficial comments on faith and morals. A pope’s private theological opinions are not infallible, only what he solemnly defines is considered to be infallible teaching.

Even Fundamentalists and Evangelicals who do not have these common misunderstandings often think infallibility means that popes are given some special grace that allows them to teach positively whatever truths need to be known, but that is not quite correct, either. Infallibility is not a substitute for theological study on the part of the pope.

What infallibility does do is prevent a pope from solemnly and formally teaching as "truth" something that is, in fact, error. It does not help him know what is true, nor does it "inspire" him to teach what is true. He has to learn the truth the way we all do—through study—though, to be sure, he has certain advantages because of his position.


Peter Not Infallible?



As a biblical example of papal fallibility, Fundamentalists like to point to Peter’s conduct at Antioch, where he refused to eat with Gentile Christians in order not to offend certain Jews from Palestine (Gal. 2:11–16). For this Paul rebuked him. Did this demonstrate papal infallibility was non-existent? Not at all. Peter’s actions had to do with matters of discipline, not with issues of faith or morals.

Furthermore, the problem was Peter’s actions, not his teaching. Paul acknowledged that Peter very well knew the correct teaching (Gal. 2:12–13). The problem was that he wasn’t living up to his own teaching. Thus, in this instance, Peter was not doing any teaching; much less was he solemnly defining a matter of faith or morals.

Fundamentalists must also acknowledge that Peter did have some kind of infallibility—they cannot deny that he wrote two infallible epistles of the New Testament while under protection against writing error. So, if his behavior at Antioch was not incompatible with this kind of infallibility, neither is bad behavior contrary to papal infallibility in general.

Turning to history, critics of the Church cite certain "errors of the popes." Their argument is really reduced to three cases, those of Popes Liberius, Vigilius, and Honorius, the three cases to which all opponents of papal infallibility turn; because they are the only cases that do not collapse as soon as they are mentioned. There is no point in giving the details here—any good history of the Church will supply the facts—but it is enough to note that none of the cases meet the requirements outlined by the description of papal infallibility given at Vatican I (cf. Pastor Aeternus 4).


Their "Favorite Case"



According to Fundamentalist commentators, their best case lies with Pope Honorius. They say he specifically taught Monothelitism, a heresy that held that Christ had only one will (a divine one), not two wills (a divine one and a human one) as all orthodox Christians hold.

But that’s not at all what Honorius did. Even a quick review of the records shows he simply decided not to make a decision at all. As Ronald Knox explained, "To the best of his human wisdom, he thought the controversy ought to be left unsettled, for the greater peace of the Church. In fact, he was an inopportunist. We, wise after the event, say that he was wrong. But nobody, I think, has ever claimed that the pope is infallible in not defining a doctrine."

Knox wrote to Arnold Lunn (a future convert who would become a great apologist for the faith—their correspondence is found in the book Difficulties): "Has it ever occurred to you how few are the alleged ‘failures of infallibility’? I mean, if somebody propounded in your presence the thesis that all the kings of England have been impeccable, you would not find yourself murmuring, ‘Oh, well, people said rather unpleasant things about Jane Shore . . . and the best historians seem to think that Charles II spent too much of his time with Nell Gwynn.’ Here have these popes been, fulminating anathema after anathema for centuries—certain in all human probability to contradict themselves or one another over again. Instead of which you get this measly crop of two or three alleged failures!" While Knox’s observation does not establish the truth of papal infallibility, it does show that the historical argument against infallibility is weak.

The rejection of papal infallibility by "Bible Christians" stems from their view of the Church. They do not think Christ established a visible Church, which means they do not believe in a hierarchy of bishops headed by the pope.

This is no place to give an elaborate demonstration of the establishment of a visible Church. But it is simple enough to point out that the New Testament shows the apostles setting up, after their Master’s instructions, a visible organization, and that every Christian writer in the early centuries—in fact, nearly all Christians until the Reformation—fully recognized that Christ set up an ongoing organization.

One example of this ancient belief comes to us from Ignatius of Antioch. In his second-century letter to the church in Smyrna, he wrote, "Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 8, 1 [A.D. 110]).

If Christ did set up such an organization, he must have provided for its continuation, for its easy identification (that is, it had to be visible so it could be found), and, since he would be gone from earth, for some method by which it could preserve his teachings intact.

All this was accomplished through the apostolic succession of bishops, and the preservation of the Christian message, in its fullness, was guaranteed through the gift of infallibility, of the Church as a whole, but mainly through its Christ-appointed leaders, the bishops (as a whole) and the pope (as an individual).

It is the Holy Spirit who prevents the pope from officially teaching error, and this charism follows necessarily from the existence of the Church itself. If, as Christ promised, the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church then it must be protected from fundamentally falling into error and thus away from Christ. It must prove itself to be a perfectly steady guide in matters pertaining to salvation.

Of course, infallibility does not include a guarantee that any particular pope won’t "neglect" to teach the truth, or that he will be sinless, or that mere disciplinary decisions will be intelligently made. It would be nice if he were omniscient or impeccable, but his not being so will fail to bring about the destruction of the Church.

But he must be able to teach rightly, since instruction for the sake of salvation is a primary function of the Church. For men to be saved, they must know what is to be believed. They must have a perfectly steady rock to build upon and to trust as the source of solemn Christian teaching. And that’s why papal infallibility exists.

Since Christ said the gates of hell would not prevail against his Church (Matt. 16:18b), this means that his Church can never pass out of existence. But if the Church ever apostasized by teaching heresy, then it would cease to exist; because it would cease to be Jesus’ Church. Thus the Church cannot teach heresy, meaning that anything it solemnly defines for the faithful to believe is true. This same reality is reflected in the Apostle Paul’s statement that the Church is "the pillar and foundation of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15). If the Church is the foundation of religious truth in this world, then it is God’s own spokesman. As Christ told his disciples: "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me" (Luke 10:16).

-the artist formerly known as sinker

[sinker 0]

The court has been effectively eliminated, the precedent was overturned. Equivalent to an apology. The Roman church has never apologized for the Inquisition.
***

but the church no longer "sanctions" torture and murder, and in fact has denounced such violance HUNDREDS of times in encyclicals, letters and catechism since the Inquisition. Is that not the same?

-the artist formerly known as sinker

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Quote

the Church is the foundation of religious truth in this world

Says who? Oh yes that fictitious book you guys keep claiming is the truth but have absolutely no way in hell (pardon the pun) in proving this. It's funny how obsessed some of you guys are. Jump more, bitch less I say. Are we skydivers and BASE jumpers, or are we just a bunch of whiners. Hmmm ... hopefully I'll be able to get a jump or two in tomorrow.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[sinker 0]

Quote

Quote

the Church is the foundation of religious truth in this world

Says who? Oh yes that fictious book you guys keep claiming is the truth but have absolutely no way in hell (pardon the pun) in proving this. It's funny how obsessed some of you guys are. Jump more, bitch less I say. Are we skydivers and BASE jumpers, or are we just a bunch of whiners. Hmmm ... hopefully I'll be able to get a jump or two in tomorrow.

I hope you get to jump too. To answer your question, the Church says so... I'm trying to explain the Church's position and clarify misconceptions that have been voiced herein. If you don't believe, I don't care. But don't come in here talking about that "fictitious book." It's highly offensive. (Maybe that's what you're trying for?)

-the artist formerly known as sinker

[mikkey 0]

Interesting thread. A couple of points I would like to make:

1) I grew up in a mixed environment (50% Protestants and 50% Catholics) – I am a Lutheran myself. The thing that always amazed me (most of my friends were Catholics) was the dishonesty and “double standards”. Most Catholics who I knew then and who I known since had a) sex before marriage b) used contraception and c) did a lot of things the Catholic Church condemns and they still called themselves Catholics. They just did not talk openly about the “issues”.

2) IMO the Catholic Church has not followed the times and is far removed form the realities of live (e.g. AIDS, over population etc.). I would bet that a large proportion of those “1.1 B” Catholics are NOT living according to the strict rules given by the Church.

Most protestant Churches have developed and allow family planning, female priests etc. etc. and I would say they are at least as “good” Christians as Catholics are. If you are a Catholic and in order to manage your (sex)live have to be a great sinner all the time it must be quite a burden. I find the Catholic Church far to “guilt” orientated, too negative.

---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Quote

But don't come in here talking about that "fictitious book." It's highly offensive. (Maybe that's what you're trying for?)

I don't believe in this book of yours and there has been a lot of harm done in the world because of it. Of course it's not the only fictitious book out there in the name of man made religions which has caused harm.

Plus it's within my rights here on DZ.COM to call any of these man made religious scripts as fiction. Don't like me for this? No problem. I certainly can deal with some religious dude not liking me because I don't believe in the book they claim is the truth but have absolutely no way to prove that it is what it claims to be. Once again, you can quote anything you want from your book about how I will be rotting in hell because I haven't accept Jesus Christ as my ... LOL ... Lord and Saviour. It's just a man made story created in a time when suppressing fellow humans with fear was the thing to do. Nothing more, nothing less.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[sinker 0]

Quote

Interesting thread. A couple of points I would like to make:

1) I grew up in a mixed environment (50% Protestants and 50% Catholics) – I am a Lutheran myself. The thing that always amazed me (most of my friends were Catholics) was the dishonesty and “double standards”. Most Catholics who I knew then and who I known since had a) sex before marriage b) used contraception and c) did a lot of things the Catholic Church condemns and they still called themselves Catholics. They just did not talk openly about the “issues”.

2) IMO the Catholic Church has not followed the times and is far removed form the realities of live (e.g. AIDS, over population etc.). I would bet that a large proportion of those “1.1 B” Catholics are NOT living according to the strict rules given by the Church.

Most protestant Churches have developed and allow family planning, female priests etc. etc. and I would say they are at least as “good” Christians as Catholics are. If you are a Catholic and in order to manage your (sex)live have to be a great sinner all the time it must be quite a burden. I find the Catholic Church far to “guilt” orientated, too negative.

You raise some very good points. First, there are many scandalous individuals in the Church. Indeed, there are "sinners" in every denomination, but perhaps there is more scrutiny on Catholics b/c of the hard line it takes on many issues. The thing that bothers me, as you intimated, are when people who claim to be Catholic go and do stuff that goes against the very teachings found w/i the church. That perhaps does more to damage peoples' view of the Church than any other thing. And many Catholics have been guilty of the whole "aw, I can do this sin or that sin and just go to confession..." what an abuse of that sacrament! I'd rather these folks you speak of just find a church whose beliefs are more in tune w/ how they want to live, i.e. in terms of birth control, etc.

As for the guilt thing... I personally try hard to live a life according to the teachings of my faith and I don't live this "guilt-ridden" life everyone speaks of. I think shame is really the more appropriate word though. Shame is feeling bad about who you ARE... fundamentally you're a BAD person... However, guilt is feeling bad for having done something wrong. You SHOULD feel bad if you've done something wrong... it's called having a CONSCIENCE!!!

Living a life in accord w/ the teachings of the Catholic Church is NOT too difficult... all it takes is cooperation w/ God's grace. That's all. However, many people THINK it is difficult, largely b/c we live in a culture and society that does not value the virtues that a Catholic lifestyle are supposed to foster (i.e. rampant pornography being one example)

Your other point about the church not being more modern, in terms of AIDS, overcrowding, etc. The main problem w/ that is that ANY system of belief that constantly changes w/ the spirit of the times quickly finds itself divorced from it when the times shift yet again. Mankind is a fickle animal. Being grounded in fundamental, unchangeable truth keeps man tethered instead of shifting w/ the changing winds...

BTW, this is a totally diff. topic, but the world is not overcrowded... there are PARTS that are, but poverty and suffering in those parts has much more to do w/ faulty distribution of goods, corrupt governments, etc. All of the people in the entire world could fit in the state of Texas and have a small area of square footage in which to move around (I forget the number, is it 15 sq ft?) Fly over our country... look at the vast expanses of empty land...

-the artist formerly known as sinker

[Kris 0]

Be careful, Steve....or they'll have Pope "Joey The Rat" Ratzinger pull an inquisition on you.

Sky, Muff Bro, Rodriguez Bro, and
Bastion of Purity and Innocence!™

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Quote

Be careful, Steve....or they'll have Pope "Joey The Rat" Ratzinger pull an inquisition on you.

Actually I'm more concerned about nut cases like James Dobson from Focus on the Family. I've met many of his flock while I lived in Colorado Springs and I can tell you that those people are just not right. They are constantly obsessed with God, Jesus and especially the Devil. That's all they talk about 24/7.

Hey I don't care for debating religion tonight. I'm out of here. Flame me if you want (which we know Sinker is already working on a huge novel). It just doesn't matter. Cheers ...

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[sinker 0]

Plus it's within my rights here on DZ.COM to call any of these man made religious scripts as fiction. Don't like me for this? No problem. I certainly can deal with some religious dude not liking me because I don't believe in the book they claim is the truth but have absolutely no way to prove that it is what it claims to be. Once again, you can quote anything you want from your book about how I will be rotting in hell because I haven't accept Jesus Christ as my ... LOL ... Lord and Saviour. It's just a man made story created in a time when suppressing fellow humans with fear was the thing to do. Nothing more, nothing less. ***

sure it's well w/i your rights.. freedom of speech and all that. it's just that I'd like to think that we could expect a more INTELLIGENT and RESPECTFUL discourse. If you can't participate that way, no sweat by me... I've stooped to your level before as well, although in every instance, my beliefs prevailed and I apologized to those I've wronged. I'm offended by you and your way of speaking to people like me, but I'll get over it. Does it make you a jerk? Perhaps. Does it make me a better person to rise above the likes of you and your attacking of people's faith? Most definately. Your posts here do nothing but try to insight anger and they show deep down who you really are. At least I'm glad to be able to see you for who you are. That is more than I can say for a lot of Catholics, believe it or not.

And I don't think you're going to Hell. Please don't put words in my mouth. You don't have that good an understanding of who I am and what I stand for. Most of what you have are half-baked assumptions and predjudices. It's not my job to judge what's in your heart (good thing, that, I'd probably be wrong). That's God's job. If you're at peace w/ your life and the way you treat Christians, well that's good for you. I think it sucks, but hey, that's my problem. And it gives me someone else to pray for.

Someday perhaps you'll see through your hate and animosity towards things Christian. I'll certainly pray for that.

Think this post is a flame? Yeah, maybe it comes across that way, but it's really not written out of anger... but it sure is not as flaming as the way you treat Christians... Christians aren't the only people who are "intolerant."

-the artist formerly known as sinker