Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Helpmabob · 12-09-2005, 02:50 AM

Clarice -

Quote:

Once you've apologized to someone, you've paid your debt to them. Your conscience should be free of guilt over what you did. I live this approach because it's the way life is in the real world.

I think it’s wonderful that you do this and that you feel that your conscience is free of guilt over things that you do which cause distress to others. I genuinely hope others forgive you back in equal measure.

Hi John –

Quote:

So you are saying the devil can't be in error.

I take no real interest in the devil; I know he is clever and devious; I try to ignore him; I focus on Jesus and try to follow Him.

andrewcriddle · 12-09-2005, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John A. Broussard

Thanks for the follow-up.

Can you give me the source for "According to RC teaching this makes it infallible."

Many thanks.

There is a discussion athttp://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04423f.htm

(Note: This expresses the RC position in the early 20th century. Since Vatican II there have been changes in emphasis.)

Andrew Criddle

Clarice O'C · 12-09-2005, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Helpmabob

Clarice - I think it’s wonderful that you do this and that you feel that your conscience is free of guilt over things that you do which cause distress to others. I genuinely hope others forgive you back in equal measure.

They don't have to forgive me at all. I don't need for them to.

John A. Broussard · 12-09-2005, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

There is a discussion athttp://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04423f.htm

(Note: This expresses the RC position in the early 20th century. Since Vatican II there have been changes in emphasis.)

Andrew Criddle

Thanks for the link.

Unfortunately, I keep coming back to where I've already been:

"It should be observed in conclusion that papal infallibility is a personal and incommunicable charisma, which is not shared by any pontifical tribunal. It was promised directly to Peter, and to each of Peter's successors in the primacy, but not as a prerogative the exercise of which could be delegated to others. Hence doctrinal decisions or instructions issued by the Roman congregations, even when approved by the pope in the ordinary way, have no claim to be considered infallible. To be infallible they must be issued by the pope himself in his own name according to the conditions already mentioned as requisite for ex cathedra teaching."

From my reading of this and what followed this paragraph is that ONLY the Pope can make an infallible pronouncement and that the Papal power was bestowed on him directly by Christ (as testified to by the usual thou art Peter verse) and was merely confirmed by the Church Council, which itself is not infallible. Since the Council couldn't have been infallible, it certainly couldn't have made an infallible pronouncement declaring that the Pope was infallible.

Which leaves me with several questions I've already posed:

How did the Pope become infallible? (Even the Church doesn't claim that the biblical verse specifically said the pope is infallible.)

How many infallible statements are there, and what are they?

Where is there an official list of Catholic dogma? As you pointed out, the Catholic Encyclopedia isn't even up-to-date, so it could harldy qualify as being the official source.

Thanks for your patience in this matter. I appreciate whatever help I can get in exploring thiis labyrinthine way.

I Love Jesus · 12-09-2005, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John A. Broussard

Thanks for the link.

Unfortunately, I keep coming back to where I've already been:

"It should be observed in conclusion that papal infallibility is a personal and incommunicable charisma, which is not shared by any pontifical tribunal. It was promised directly to Peter, and to each of Peter's successors in the primacy, but not as a prerogative the exercise of which could be delegated to others. Hence doctrinal decisions or instructions issued by the Roman congregations, even when approved by the pope in the ordinary way, have no claim to be considered infallible. To be infallible they must be issued by the pope himself in his own name according to the conditions already mentioned as requisite for ex cathedra teaching."

From my reading of this and what followed this paragraph is that ONLY the Pope can make an infallible pronouncement and that the Papal power was bestowed on him directly by Christ (as testified to by the usual thou art Peter verse) and was merely confirmed by the Church Council, which itself is not infallible. Since the Council couldn't have been infallible, it certainly couldn't have made an infallible pronouncement declaring that the Pope was infallible.

I think that the infallibility is given to the magisterium of the Church (includes councils), and the pope is part of the magisterium. This is my understanding - I could be mistaken.

Here is a list of Vatican statements regarding infallibility.
http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ279.HTM

Which leaves me with several questions I've already posed:

Quote:

How did the Pope become infallible? (Even the Church doesn't claim that the biblical verse specifically said the pope is infallible.)

The verse used to back this claim is primarily Matt 16:19 - "and the gates of hell shall not prevail against [the Church built on Peter].

Quote:

How many infallible statements are there, and what are they

Where is there an official list of Catholic dogma? As you pointed out, the Catholic Encyclopedia isn't even up-to-date, so it could harldy qualify as being the official source.

Thanks for your patience in this matter. I appreciate whatever help I can get in exploring thiis labyrinthine way.

I have a link bookmarked on my computer at home, I will post it later.

Helpmabob · 12-10-2005, 02:35 AM

Hi Clarice –

Quote:

They don't have to forgive me at all.

I don't need for them to. On a scale of 1 to 7, what is your approximate position regarding sin and forgiveness:

1. There is no such thing as sin.
2. A woman cannot sin.
3. A woman sins; but it does not matter - she does not need to do anything about it.
4. A woman sins; it makes no difference to herself whether she asks forgiveness or not, but she should, because (it is right/it feels right/just in case).
5. A woman sins; it makes no difference to herself whether she asks forgiveness or not, but it makes the person sinned against feel better.
6. A woman has sinned; she must ask forgiveness because (it cancels out/removes) the sin.
7. A woman sins; it also offends God, and from Him also must forgiveness be sought.

Clarice O'C · 12-10-2005, 05:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Helpmabob

Hi Clarice – I don't need for them to. On a scale of 1 to 7, what is your approximate position regarding sin and forgiveness:

1. There is no such thing as sin.
2. A woman cannot sin.
3. A woman sins; but it does not matter - she does not need to do anything about it.
4. A woman sins; it makes no difference to herself whether she asks forgiveness or not, but she should, because (it is right/it feels right/just in case).
5. A woman sins; it makes no difference to herself whether she asks forgiveness or not, but it makes the person sinned against feel better.
6. A woman has sinned; she must ask forgiveness because (it cancels out/removes) the sin.
7. A woman sins; it also offends God, and from Him also must forgiveness be sought.

8. I don't use the word "sin." It sounds old-fashioned, religiously-loaded; it's a dumb word. I say that I've made a mistake, that I did something wrong, careless, stupid, etc. I say, "I'm sorry" or "I apologize" to the person because it's the right thing to do.

I repeat: You can't be sure you'll be forgiven by anyone. Thems the breaks. But you have done your part in apologizing. You're then free. The onus is on them. If someone *needs* for them to forgive them and can't get over it if they don't, well, I'd suggest psychotherapy. I'm not saying this is you, though.

Are you understanding anything that members have said to you on this thread or are you just playing around? It doesn't appear that you're learning anything. Just religious dogma, dogma, dogma. :banghead:

BTW, how old are you? You don't have to answer but you appear to be very young, like 20 or less because you seem to have very little experience with life. You don't realize that your religion is dangerous to you and others in the world. If you are at all open-minded to learning anything other than adding to what's already in your head, read the book: http://www.samharris.org/ You can get it at the library or buy it for $10.00 or less.

Diogenes the Cynic · 12-10-2005, 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Helpmabob

Hi Clarice – I don't need for them to. On a scale of 1 to 7, what is your approximate position regarding sin and forgiveness:

1. There is no such thing as sin.

Bingo.

"Sin" is a purely religious idea with no real meaning in empirical terms.

andrewcriddle · 12-11-2005, 08:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John A. Broussard

Thanks for the link.

Unfortunately, I keep coming back to where I've already been:

"It should be observed in conclusion that papal infallibility is a personal and incommunicable charisma, which is not shared by any pontifical tribunal. It was promised directly to Peter, and to each of Peter's successors in the primacy, but not as a prerogative the exercise of which could be delegated to others. Hence doctrinal decisions or instructions issued by the Roman congregations, even when approved by the pope in the ordinary way, have no claim to be considered infallible. To be infallible they must be issued by the pope himself in his own name according to the conditions already mentioned as requisite for ex cathedra teaching."

From my reading of this and what followed this paragraph is that ONLY the Pope can make an infallible pronouncement and that the Papal power was bestowed on him directly by Christ (as testified to by the usual thou art Peter verse) and was merely confirmed by the Church Council, which itself is not infallible. Since the Council couldn't have been infallible, it certainly couldn't have made an infallible pronouncement declaring that the Pope was infallible.

I think you are possibly misreading the article

Quote:

Papal and conciliar infallibility are correlated but not identical. A council's decrees approved by the pope are infallible by reason of that approbation, because the pope is infallible also extra concilium, without the support of a council. The infallibility proper to the pope is not, however, the only formal adequate ground of the council's infallibility. The Divine constitution of the Church and the promises of Divine assistance made by her Founder, guarantee her inerrancy, in matters pertaining to faith and morals, independently of the pope's infallibility: a fallible pope supporting, and supported by, a council, would still pronounce infallible decisions. This accounts for the fact that, before the Vatican decree concerning the supreme pontiff's ex-cathedra judgments, Ecumenical councils were generally held to be infallible even by those who denied the papal infallibility; it also explains the concessions largely made to the opponents of the papal privilege that it is not necessarily implied in the infallibility of councils, and the claims that it can be proved separately and independently on its proper merits. The infallibility of the council is intrinsic, i.e. springs from its nature. Christ promised to be in the midst of two or three of His disciples gathered together in His name; now an Ecumenical council is, in fact or in law, a gathering of all Christ's co-workers for the salvation of man through true faith and holy conduct; He is therefore in their midst, fulfilling His promises and leading them into the truth for which they are striving. His presence, by cementing the unity of the assembly into one body -- His own mystical body -- gives it the necessary completeness, and makes up for any defect possibly arising from the physical absence of a certain number of bishops. The same presence strengthens the action of the pope, so that, as mouthpiece of the council, he can say in truth, "it has seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us", and consequently can, and does, put the seal of infallibility on the conciliar decree irrespective of his own personal infallibility.

This seems to clearly state that the doctrine of the infallibility of general councils does not depend on the infallibility of the pope.

(the authority of Vatican congregations etc does depend on specific Papal approval but Vatican congregations are not general/ecumenical councils.)

Andrew Criddle

John A. Broussard · 12-11-2005, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by I Love Jesus

I have a link bookmarked on my computer at home, I will post it later.

Thanks. I'll be watching for it.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.