The Peralta Stones

Dear Oroblanco;
Actually, the idea of Papal infallibility goes back to the first centuries of the Christian Church, however it was never fully defined until the Vatican I Council in which it was given Solemn and Formal Definition. The first instance of Papal infallibilty was in 449 AD when Pope Leo I wrote The Tome To Flavian which defined the two natures of Jesus Christ. Two years later, at the Council of Chalcedon, the Bishops exclaimed "This is the faith of the fathers! Peter has spoken thus through Leo!"

The issue of Papal infallibilty was first raised by Theodore Abū Qurrah, a Christian Arab, during the 9th century, however was not until the Middle Ages that the concept of Papal infallibilty was serious discussed by Catholic theologians, some of which included the famed St. Thomas of Aquinas and John Peter Olivi.

The very first time that Papal infallibility was defined was in 1330 AD by +Bishop Terreni and His definition of the use of Papal infallibilty is remarkably similiar to the solemn definition outlined at the Vatican I Council. To sum up what the correct definition of Papal infallibilty is, it can be accurately stated that:

"It is incorrect to hold that doctrine teaches that the Pope is infallible in everything he says. In reality, the invocation of papal infallibility is extremely rare."
Your friend;
LAMAR
 

Sorry, got to interject for a tad of clarity.

Speaking from the Catholic view and teachings - Papal infallibility ONLY pertains to what he says "ex cathedra" (on behalf of the church). The term does not, nor has it ever, meant anything but that - in other words, his own issues, personal life, temper, personal opinions or what-have-you never came under the heading of Papal Infallibility - and then when it is with the collective learnings of cardinals, past popes etc., and then, usually only when some doctrine has been questioned.

Protestants don't see it quite the same way. In fact, they don't believe in Papal Infallibility. They believe the Bible is perfect, however, it is the human interpretations that are an issue, and not always entirely free of human error. (of course, depending on the individual person, this can be more conservative or more liberal in thinking)

Bottom line is: when discussing Papal Infallibility, you kind of have to define it very carefully before you can comment on it - because it's meaning is different for different Christian religions.

B
 

Dear mrs.oroblanco;
You wrote:
Papal infallibility ONLY pertains to what he says "ex cathedra" (on behalf of the church).

Actually, EX CATHEDRA means "FROM (or OF) THE CHAIR, meaning of course, the chair of St. Peter. While there exists no true explanation of what defines an Ex Cathedra statement, they are generally considered to include one, or both, of the following statements:
1) a formula which determines that the statement which follows is definite and everlasting, such as "We declare, decree and define..."
2) The statement includes an anathema which states that anyone who knowingly dissents the statement is excommunicated.

A perfect example of Papal infallibilty would be Pope Pius XII encyclical titled "Munificentissimus Deus" (Most Bountiful God). This particular encyclical defines the Assumption of Mary into Heaven and in the encyclical we may read:

(Part of paragraph 44) by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.


and:
(All of Paragraph) 45. Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith.

And that pretty much ends the debate on the assumption of the Virgin Mary's body into Heaven upon Her death. Forever. Period. It may be further defined in the future but the statement itself can never be altered due to "Sensus Fidelium" which says that the original statement can never be altered or deleted by the Church, even if it is later shown to be fallible.

When the Pope speaks Ex Cathedra, He does not do so on behalf of the entire Roman Catholic body, He does so as the Supreme Pontiff, or teacher and protector of the faith and He is speaking to the entire Roman Catholic congregation, for now and all time.
Your friend;
LAMAR
 

:coffee2: Larmar my friend ,Can you ever concede to a draw, after all the real last words end up in H. or H. Why not agree with everyones point of view even if you don"t. Why be Ceaser when you can really be Lamar.
Your friend in ice cold Las Vegas. :hello:
 

Dear ghostdog;
I would be more than happy to let the issue of Papal infallibilty rest, however like much in the dogma of the Roman Catholic Church, there exists a great deal of doubt and misunderstanding. It would take several lifetimes for any single person to remember all of the current doctrines and dogmas by rote, to say nothing of trying to keep track of all the conspiracy theories currently floating around.

In regards to Roman Catholic dogma I am merely attempting to clarify the position of the traditional teachings, my friend. I do not mean to preach or lecture however I do tend to correct those misrepresentations. Sadly enough, most of the misrepresentations tend to come from members of the Church Herself, in that generations of Roman Catholics were taught incorrectly by other Roman Catholics, and thus their interpretation of certain doctrinal issues are hazy.

The issue of infallibility is one those which is often misunderstood, simply because the use of Ex Cathedra is so rare that most Roman Catholic scholars and teachers consider it to be a very minor issue, and so they tend to gloss over it or eliminate it entirely from their cathecisms.

And now, if there are no more questions regarding Papal infallibilty, I shall be happy to put the issue to rest.
Your friend;
LAMAR
 

Lamar wrote
Dear Oroblanco;
Actually, the idea of Papal infallibility goes back to the first centuries of the Christian Church, however it was never fully defined until the Vatican I Council in which it was given Solemn and Formal Definition. The first instance of Papal infallibilty was in 449 AD when Pope Leo I wrote The Tome To Flavian which defined the two natures of Jesus Christ. Two years later, at the Council of Chalcedon, the Bishops exclaimed "This is the faith of the fathers! Peter has spoken thus through Leo!"

The issue of Papal infallibilty was first raised by Theodore Abū Qurrah, a Christian Arab, during the 9th century, however was not until the Middle Ages that the concept of Papal infallibilty was serious discussed by Catholic theologians, some of which included the famed St. Thomas of Aquinas and John Peter Olivi.

The very first time that Papal infallibility was defined was in 1330 AD by +Bishop Terreni and His definition of the use of Papal infallibilty is remarkably similiar to the solemn definition outlined at the Vatican I Council. To sum up what the correct definition of Papal infallibilty is, it can be accurately stated that:

"It is incorrect to hold that doctrine teaches that the Pope is infallible in everything he says. In reality, the invocation of papal infallibility is extremely rare."
Click to expand...

So let me get this point, you are saying that the Papal infallibility was in fact DOGMA and the rule, prior to 1870? As far as I could ascertain, this infallibility idea was not accepted as dogma prior to the Vatican Council of 1870. Thank you in advance,

I have absolutely NO idea how to tie this in to the subject matter of this thread, just wanted to pin down the dissimulation of our friend Lamar on this point.
Oroblanco
 

Lamar,

I have to disagree and say - not only do I disagree, but you are incorrect.

Exact translation from one language to another, word for word, is not possible. Many many languages, if translated exactly - do not mean what they really mean. Anyone who has ever spoken another language besides English knows this is true, without a doubt. For instance, translate this: jugo de china - juice of a chinese woman - right? Nope, its orange juice. How about "huevos or juevos" - eggs, right? Or, it could mean testicles.
Or, how about "hijo de una gran puta" - It can mean "son of a b.....tch - OR - child of the biggest whore. How about - well, I could go on forever, but I hope you get the point.

The pope ALWAYS talks about doctrine, when we are speaking about "papal infallibility" - any catholic (as opposed to just Christian), learns that every Sunday in Catechism.

How about a quote or two from the Catholic Encyclopedia?

Scope and object of infallibility
1
In the Vatican definition infallibility (whether of the Church at large or of the pope) is affirmed only in regard to doctrines of faith or morals; but within the province of faith and morals its scope is not limited to doctrines that have been formally revealed. This, however, is clearly understood to be what theologians call the direct and primary object of infallible authority: it was for the maintenance and interpretation and legitimate development of Christ's teaching that the Church was endowed with this charisma. But if this primary function is to be adequately and effectively discharged, it is clear that there must also be indirect and secondary objects to which infallibility extends, namely, doctrines and facts which, although they cannot strictly speaking be said to be revealed, are nevertheless so intimately connected with revealed truths that, were one free to deny the former, he would logically deny the latter and thus defeat the primary purpose for which infallibility was promised by Christ to His Church. This principle is expressly affirmed by the Vatican Council when it says that "the Church, which, together with the Apostolic office of teaching received the command to guard the deposit of faith, possesses also by Divine authority (divinitus) the right to condemn science falsely so called, lest anyone should be cheated by philosophy and vain conceit (cf. Colossians 2:8)" (Denz., 1798, old no. 1845).

There is much more, if you'd care to be so educated. So, before you "put something to bed", make sure you have all the facts, and understand that WE (you included) are not "infallible".

B
 

Dear mrs.oroblanco;
You wrote:
translation from one language to another, word for word, is not possible. Many many languages, if translated exactly - do not mean what they really mean. Anyone who has ever spoken another language besides English knows this is true, without a doubt. For instance, translate this: jugo de china - juice of a chinese woman - right? Nope, its orange juice. How about "huevos or juevos" - eggs, right? Or, it could mean testicles.
Or, how about "hijo de una gran puta" - It can mean "son of a b.....tch - OR - child of the biggest whore. How about - well, I could go on forever, but I hope you get the point.


Actually that's all slang. To say "orange juice" in Spanish you would state "jugo de naranja or naranxa" or even "sumo de naranja(naranxa) in certain parts of Spain. Please note that the word "jugo" is true Castillian, whereas the word "sumo(a) was originally Portuguese. The word "huevos" means literally "eggs" an the word "testiculos" is the correct word for testicles, however we were taught as youngsters to say "Blanquillos" for chicken eggs, which is a more polite form of word, although not correct. To state the saying "son of a b....tch" correctly you would proclaim "hijo de perra" in Castillian Spanish or "fil de goz" in Catalan Spanish. I can even say it in Latin if you'd like. :-)

About the issue which we were discussing, I find nothing in the Catholic Encyclopedia which contradicts that which I've been stating all along, therefore I do not understand how I was possibly incorrect. Perhaps your interpretation is lacking?
Your friend;
LAMAR
 

Dear oroblanco;
You wrote:
So let me get this point, you are saying that the Papal infallibility was in fact DOGMA and the rule, prior to 1870? As far as I could ascertain, this infallibility idea was not accepted as dogma prior to the Vatican Council of 1870. Thank you in advance,

I have absolutely NO idea how to tie this in to the subject matter of this thread, just wanted to pin down the dissimulation of our friend Lamar on this point.
Oroblanco

Yes, it is correct that Papal infallibility was not defined in a Council before 1870 AD, however this does NOT mean that the concept did not exist before then. In our Holy Church we have dogma, doctrines, rubrics and something which is known as "Sacred Tradition". This means that if something which was previously undefined, yet accepted by the Church, for the preceeding two hundred or more years, it becomes a part of the Church's heritage and religious beliefs.

A good example of sacred tradition would be the Ambrosian Rite Mass. Prior to 1570 AD, there did not exist a defined set of rubrics (rituals) for the celebration of Mass, therefore Pope Pius V incorporated the Tridentine Missal, making it mandatory throughout the Roman Catholic Church EXCEPT for those Missals which could prove that they have been in use for at least 200 years preceeding the 1570 mandate.

In light of sacred tradition, the Ambrosian Rite Mass continues to be celebrated throughout parts of Italy. There also exists several other Missals which pre-date the Council of Trent by at least 200 years, and some are still celebrated while others have fallen into disuse, however, the fact remains that if a Mass was celebrated for 200 years prior to 1570 AD, it remains a valid and licit Mass recognized by the Roman Catholic Church. This includes all of the Eastern Orthodoxies.

This is also why the current Roman Catholic Church cannot foresee any critical issues of doctrine by permitting the whole of the Anglican Church to reunite with Rome. The traditions of the Anglicans were taken directly from their former religion, that being the Catholics, and Englicized. In fact, the Latin Vulgate Bible was used throughout the Anglican Church until at least the mid 1800s and it remains a licit interpretation of the Holy Gospel according to the traditional Anglican clergy. In short, the doctrines of the Anglican church and the Roman Catholic Church are so similiar that, because of sacred traditions, the Anglicans may be welcomed back into the fold with opened arms and little, if any, Catholic catchecism.

The confusion lies in that not everything within the Roman Catholic Church is written down or even NEEDS to be written down, my friend. There exists no SOP in regards to the Holy Church and the closest we come to something like that would be the Code of Canon Law and the Catchecisms and even these are quite often subjected to the closest scrutinies. Sacred tradition, however cannot be subjected to the same scrutiny because they are accepted as part of the Church. When asked why a certain diocese does something a certain way, the age-old universal answer seems to be "Because that's the way we've ALWAYS done it!" :-)
Your friend;
LAMAR
 

Dear oroblanco;
In all reality, the entire issue of Papal infallibility would never have been discussed in a theological Council, much less defined, had it not been for the unrelenting attacks on the subject by the Protestant clergy. They would spout off with something like "Catholics think that everything the Pope says and does is beyond reproach!", which of course is wholly untrue, however the Protestants liked to say things like that, however they didn't really start saying this until the 1800s, as most of them were still subjects to kings and queens before that time. Talk about your classical example of hippocracy. It boggles the mind. The use of Papal infallibility is so rare within the Church that most Roman Catholic church leaders would not even have considered it to be a point worth defining had it not been for the Protestants.
Your friend;
LAMAR
 

Lamar wrote
The use of Papal infallibility is so rare within the Church that most Roman Catholic church leaders would not even have considered it to be a point worth defining had it not been for the Protestants.
Click to expand...

Then in your opinion, do Catholics owe the Protestants a debt of gratitude for having brought the whole issue into question and thus getting it officially defined? Thank you in advance,
Oroblanco
 

See, Lamar,

You are again making an assumption. Only Costillians think that Costillian is "the" proper and only Spanish. I said nothing in "slang", but rather in other Spanish tongues. Puerto Rican, Mexican, Basque and other spanish areas have their own dialects - yes, they have slang, too, but there is other dialects.

Here is more quotes from the Catholic Encyclopedia. (please note the dates, because we must remember that Protestants do not agree with Papal Infallibility, even though they are Christian.)

To the Roman Catholic, "ex cathedra" (Latin for 'from the seat') statements are as infallible as the Bible. This infallibility rests on the Pope's supreme authority as St. Peter's successor. Here are three of the "infallible" declarations which exercised the "ex cathedra" and were placed alongside the authority of the Bible:
"There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which no one at all can be saved" (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215).
"We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unan Snactam, 1302).
"[The Holy Roman Church] firmly believes, professes, and teaches that those who are not within the Catholic Church, not only Pagans, but Jews, heretics, and schismatics, can never be partakers of eternal life, but are to go into eternal fire 'prepared for the devil and his angels', unless before the close of their lives they shall have entered into that Church" [Pope Eugene IV, The Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.


Explanation of papal infallibility
The Vatican Council has defined as "a divinely revealed dogma" that "the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra — that is, when in the exercise of his office as pastor and teacher of all Christians he defines, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the whole Church — is, by reason of the Divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer wished His Church to be endowed in defining doctrines of faith and morals; and consequently that such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of their own nature (ex sese) and not by reason of the Church's consent" (Densinger no. 1839 — old no. 1680). For the correct understanding of this definition it is to be noted that:
what is claimed for the pope is infallibility merely, not impeccability or inspiration (see above under I).
the infallibility claimed for the pope is the same in its nature, scope, and extent as that which the Church as a whole possesses; his ex cathedra teaching does not have to be ratified by the Church's in order to be infallible.
infallibility is not attributed to every doctrinal act of the pope, but only to his ex cathedra teaching; and the conditions required for ex cathedra teaching are mentioned in the Vatican decree:
The pontiff must teach in his public and official capacity as pastor and doctor of all Christians, not merely in his private capacity as a theologian, preacher or allocutionist, nor in his capacity as a temporal prince or as a mere ordinary of the Diocese of Rome. It must be clear that he speaks as spiritual head of the Church universal.
Then it is only when, in this capacity, he teaches some doctrine of faith or morals that he is infallible (see below, IV).
Further it must be sufficiently evident that he intends to teach with all the fullness and finality of his supreme Apostolic authority, in other words that he wishes to determine some point of doctrine in an absolutely final and irrevocable way, or to define it in the technical sense (see DEFINITION). These are well-recognized formulas by means of which the defining intention may be manifested.
Finally for an ex cathedra decision it must be clear that the pope intends to bind the whole Church. To demand internal assent from all the faithful to his teaching under pain of incurring spiritual shipwreck (naufragium fidei) according to the expression used by Pius IX in defining the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin. Theoretically, this intention might be made sufficiently clear in a papal decision which is addressed only to a particular Church; but in present day conditions, when it is so easy to communicate with the most distant parts of the earth and to secure a literally universal promulgation of papal acts, the presumption is that unless the pope formally addresses the whole Church in the recognized official way, he does not intend his doctrinal teaching to be held by all the faithful as ex cathedra and infallible.

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.

B
 

Dear Oroblanco;
You asked:
Then in your opinion, do Catholics owe the Protestants a debt of gratitude for having brought the whole issue into question and thus getting it officially defined? Thank you in advance,
Oroblanco
Honestly, no I do not feel that as Catholics we owe the Protestants a debt of gratitude for anything. They've taken many non-issues and because of deliberate misinterpretations converted them in something to their own liking. In other words, they slandered a religious group in order to (incorrectly) try and portray themselves as the ideal Christian faith.
Your friend;
LAMAR
 

Dear mrs.oroblanco;
You wrote:
You are again making an assumption. Only Costillians think that Costillian is "the" proper and only Spanish

In all reality, Castillian Spanish is recognized as the correct form of the langauge throughout the Spanish speaking world, my friend. International Spanish is taught directly from the rules of grammar from Spain. To quote directly:
The Real Academia Española (English: Royal Spanish Academy), the RAE, is the official royal institution responsible for regulating the Spanish language. It is based in Madrid, Spain, but is affiliated with national language academies in twenty-one Spanish-speaking nations through the Association of Spanish Language Academies.

In other words, the Spanish of the Royal Spanish Academy, which is in Madrid, Spain, oddly enough, is the regulating body for the Spanish language. And no, they do not teach the phrase "juego de china" in the classrooms in Puerto Rico. That is learned on the streets, hence my use of the term "slang". All educated Puerto Ricans realize the correct form would be "juego de naranja" and as such they can fully comprehend this phrase whenever they venture away from their island.

I am able to communicate in two of the five principle dialects of Spain, and have been trying to learn a third dialect off and on. And yes, I am able to translate Latin into English in a concise and coherent manner with a precise and comprehensive definition. Converting from English to Latin is another story entirely and in this aspect I am woefully lacking, however I am seldom called upon to do so, so it does not handicap me much at all.

This is the beauty of translating from a dead language into a living one. The dead language is not subject to change in that the meaning of the words always remain as they are. Written words are used to convery instructions, thoughts, concepts and ideas and if the language used to express these is not subjected to the evolution of time and usage then it's a very simple matter to translate them.

On the other hand, when attempting to translate from a living language into a dead one, the problems multiply, because the words of the living langauge tend to evolve and therefore we must always remain vigilant to the modern nuences of the language we attempting to use as the root language.
Your friend;
LAMAR
 

They don't teach "jeugo de China" in Puerto Rico? Well, they've been teaching it, and saying it, at least since 1967 - and every year since then - I have not only spent much time in PR, several of my nieces and nephews went to school there, not to mention I have family who lives there. In fact, my ex-father-in-law (Costillian Spanish), from Spain, and my ex-mother-in-law (Puerto Rico), used to have very spirited discussions over her language and his.

I'm done now, since you obviously don't know what you are talking about, but want to convince me that you do.

Oh, and I can speak both.

B
 

Dear mrs.oroblanco;
As a point of fact, Castilian is spelled with an A and not an O. It's pronounced as CAW STEEL E AHN, and not COST EEL E AHN. I may not know what I am talking about but I do know how to spell in Spanish.
Your friend;
LAMAR
 

Dear mrs.oroblanco;
No apologies are necessary! And now let's return to Papal infallibility, or whatever it was we were discussing... Oh yes, the Lost Dutchman Mine! Are people STILL looking for that? Amazing.
Your friend;
LAMAR
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Some more info on the LDM

⬅️ Previous Thread

Another LDM Story

Next Thread ➡️

Top Member Reactions

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Simplex Metal Detector

Latest Discussions

Back
Top