Faith Focused Dating. Create your Free Profile and meet your Match!

info: Please Sign Up or Sign In to continue.

A place to learn, mingle, and share

This room is for discussion related to learning about the faith (Catechetics), defense of the Faith (Apologetics), the Liturgy and canon law, motivated by a desire to grow closer to Christ or to bring someone else closer.

Saint Augustine of Hippo is considered on of the greatest Christian thinkers of all time and the Doctor of the Church.
Learn More: Saint Augustine

I don't understand the "No" answers to the question of papal infallibility.

There are only two "ex cathedra" teachings:
1) The Immaculate Conception of Mary
2) The Assumption of Mary into heaven

So, does a "No" mean a person disagrees with one of these two teachings or that the person disagrees with the definition of "papal infallibility"?
May 3rd 2014 new
(quote) Thomas-969180 said: I don't understand the "No" answers to the question of papal infallibility.

There are only two "ex cathedra" teachings:
1) The Immaculate Conception of Mary
2) The Assumption of Mary into heaven

So, does a "No" mean a person disagrees with one of these two teachings or that the person disagrees with the definition of "papal infallibility"?
Hi Thomas,

I had to laugh when i saw this, because I always laugh a little when I see it in a profile, because I think. . .you believe that bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Our Lord. You believe the Word became Incarnate in a young virgin girl. You believe God became Man and died for your sins was buried and resurrected. . .but you have a problem with the idea that the Pope is infallible, when the same God and the same Holy Spirit are guaranteed to him and the Church.

I think it is possible that they object to one of the two ex cathedra teachings, but I would suspect most aren't even sure what those two things are and that the objection is really the second.

Just seems to be sort of a logical disconnect in the thinking there :-). It doesn't bother me, I just see it as a point for query and discussion, but I do think it is kind of humorous.
May 3rd 2014 new
(quote) Thomas-969180 said: I don't understand the "No" answers to the question of papal infallibility.

There are only two "ex cathedra" teachings:
1) The Immaculate Conception of Mary
2) The Assumption of Mary into heaven

So, does a "No" mean a person disagrees with one of these two teachings or that the person disagrees with the definition of "papal infallibility"?
I am guessing they don't really understand the definition. Of the few men that I have notice answer this question "no," I think the majority were converts to Catholicism. I can see why they would answer this way unless someone had really given them a good teaching. Converts like myself, having experienced some instances in Protestantism where a pastor was considered the authority and then had a huge fall, might shie from this teaching. It might make a good conversation starter.
May 3rd 2014 new
One more thought. I have noticed some profiles where men list that they don't have children but in their introduction they mention children. I usually believe it is a sign they accidentally marked the incorrect answer and didn't catch the mistake. It could be an explanation for the negative response to the papal infallibility question.
May 3rd 2014 new
In talking to the few women that I have met who stated "no" on their profile, they did not understand the definition. As stated in the CCC, the "position" of papal authority is infallible, not the person occupying that position. It goes on to say what we all know, that all people, including the Pope, are sinners. As such, any "sinner" can speak out against the Church, and nothing prevents a Pope from doing so. However, the "position" of Pope, assigned by Jesus Christ, remains infallible, even though the person assigned to that position may say or do things that appear to be against Church teachings. Once we were clear on the definition, all the women I have spoken to have said that they would now agree to state "yes" to that question as it relates to the "position" of papal authority.....
May 3rd 2014 new
(quote) Thomas-969180 said: I don't understand the "No" answers to the question of papal infallibility.

There are only two "ex cathedra" teachings:
1) The Immaculate Conception of Mary
2) The Assumption of Mary into heaven

So, does a "No" mean a person disagrees with one of these two teachings or that the person disagrees with the definition of "papal infallibility"?
There are more than two ex cathedra definitions of doctrine concerning faith and morals. Three other examples that come to mind immediately are from Pope St. John Paul II's Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful.) and from Pope Boniface VIII's Unam Sanctam (Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.) and from Pope Leo XIII's Apostolicae Curae (Wherefore, strictly adhering, in this matter, to the decrees of the pontiffs, our predecessors, and confirming them most fully, and, as it were, renewing them by our authority, of our own initiative and certain knowledge, we pronounce and declare that ordinations carried out according to the Anglican rite have been, and are, absolutely null and utterly void.). There are many more than this as well, especially seen coming from the Ecumenical Councils.

Beyond that, I think that too many people do not understand what the word infallible means, but instead equate it with the concept "impeccable" as regards the inability to sin. The Pope, remaining human, has the ability to sin. He, however, since the Divine Redeemer wished the Roman Pontiff to enjoy the prerogative of infallibility in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals, cannot fail to do so correctly when he uses the prerogative. It's pretty clearly set out by Pope Pius IX at the First Vatican Council and available to all to read online.

www.papalencyclicals.net


May 3rd 2014 new
Hi Chelsea,

I am asking only for my own clarification, but isn't there a distinction between the infallibility of the ordinary teaching Magesterium as exercised by the Pope as the Roman Pontiff and the ex cathedra pronouncement of the Pope as coming from the seat of Peter. . . two places where infallibility resides?

Both of course infallible but coming from a slightly different places in the authority of the pope?


May 3rd 2014 new

If both the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption are obvious and irrefutable truths , why was it nearly 2000 years until they became established-beyond-doubt Church Doctrines?

Based on his appearance , the Pope who proclaimed the I-C Doctrine was a very un-impressive individual, as were so many of the Popes of that period..For centuries , the Papacy was a " non-Italians need not apply" situation,There is a photo-image of Pope Pius that is almost repulsive , he is crowned with a hideous Medieval tiara and wears a long flowing king-like robe. He is seated on a throne which sets on a platform which is held aloft by costumed "guards". The Papacy must end these ornate ceremonies , and the Pope should appear attired in the most simple garments and without a archaic head-piece.

Busy at a task when the phone rings , Fr. O'Malley calling---- "Al , the Pope has just ruled that Mary was born without sin, so you must believe and accept this without any doubts or reservations."

"Yes Father, I will now believe that; is there anything else new you want me to believe?"

"No Al , not at this time"; end of conversation ,and I return to my task, not in the least effected by what I sm now ordered to believe.

My point is that the two Ex Cathedra proclamations are almost totally irrelevant and meaningless as applied to our every-day concerns, troubles , problems , and efforts in trying to lead an exemplary life as Christ would want us to do.

May 3rd 2014 new
To add something to what Albert just said:

At the time of the First Vatican Council (18691870), even the famous Newman was uneasy about the formal definition of the doctrine of papal infallibility, believing that the time was 'inopportune'. In a private letter to his bishop (William Bernard Ullathorne), surreptitiously published, he denounced the "insolent and aggressive faction" that had pushed the matter forward. Newman gave no sign of disapproval when the doctrine was finally defined, but was an advocate of the "principle of minimising", that included very few papal declarations within the scope of infallibility. Subsequently, in a letter nominally addressed to the Duke of Norfolk when Gladstone accused the Roman Church of having "equally repudiated modern thought and ancient history," Newman affirmed that he had always believed in the doctrine, and had only feared the deterrent effect of its definition on conversions on account of acknowledged historical difficulties. In this letter, and especially in the postscript to the second edition, Newman answered the charge that he was not at ease within the Catholic Church.

Michael



May 4th 2014 new
(quote) Lauren-927923 said: Hi Chelsea,

I am asking only for my own clarification, but isn't there a distinction between the infallibility of the ordinary teaching Magesterium as exercised by the Pope as the Roman Pontiff and the ex cathedra pronouncement of the Pope as coming from the seat of Peter. . . two places where infallibility resides?

Both of course infallible but coming from a slightly different places in the authority of the pope?


Hi, Lauren,

It is only the Roman Pontiff when teaching ex cathedra who enjoys infallibility in defining doctrines concerning faith and morals. There is no other teaching authority protected as such in defining (and this does not mean that the Pope is teaching something new, only that he is making clear in a specific area doctrines concerning what the Church has always and everywhere taught) doctrines.

The First Vatican Council also teaches us that the Church can infallibly promulgate the deposit of faith, but that is not the same as defining a doctrine concerning faith and morals. To promulgate anything is to set it forth or teach it publicly. Vatican I clarifies this notion with the statement, "Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding." This protection is not only the prerogative of the Holy Father, but all those who comprise the ordinary and universal Magisterium (Bishops through all time and places teaching in conformity to the deposit of faith).
Posts 1 - 10 of 30