there are few claims of inerrancy of the pope prior to 1000AD

[dairygirl4u2c]

are there many claims of inerrancy of the pope prior to say, 1000-1300?

i see plenty that he is a "first among equals" and a highly respected leader, and perhaps even deferred to, but nothing in the way of 'inerrant'. it's said that even if that doctrine is true, it wouldn't just spring up in full force. which i understand. but then again, it wouldn't take more than a thousand years to say something about the pope being inerrant.

he wasn't really defined as inerrant until after 1000AD. also, i'm trying to understand that critical point in history. 1050 ish was when the East broke from the West. early 1200 ish is when the Latern Council said the pope should be "humbly defer"ed to. (note they didn't say humbly submit) and late 1200 ish is when a fellow named Olivi (some call him the 'inventor' of infalliblity) came along and without question said the pope cannot error. in the early 1300 ish a pope John XXII decried that idea of infalliblity, at least the extent of the definition given. the pope talked about all temporal and civil power and everything being too much for the pope. it is unclear if he thought any perogative of the pope being inerrant was too much, or the extent described. it's ambiguous... but seems to indicate any inerrancy peroagative was too much. but.... and this is a big but, less than a mere decade after that pope, though, another named Terreni came along and defined infallibliity very similar to the way Vatican I defined infallibility.

so i'm wondering what connections there are between Terreni and Olivi? why did Terreni see fit to limit infallibility better? was he influenced by Olivi or did he act on his own accord? he was almost surely influence by the pope's writing against infallibility, right? and yet he still chose to write it similar to how vatican I would later do it?

that does seem to be pretty compelling in favor of the catholic church. as of now, i just don't have enough info about all the connections. but ultimately even if this time frame was viewed most favorably to catholics, where is the proof of inerrancy pre1000-1200?

[dairygirl4u2c]

there is only one quote that i know of, that might indicate inerrant, or infallible. where he talks about no 'stain' or 'blemish'

 

Pope Damasus I

 

"Likewise it is decreed . . . that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it" (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).

[superblue]

I still say that the democrat party has been infiltrated by socialists and communists alike. and more over, i find it disgusting how the party has managed to snag the simple minded and lazy by the nose and lead them in any direction they want with out any repercussions what so ever.

 

Go ahead i dare you to find one major democrat leader who was ever held accountable for his or her actions and was either removed from office, fined, or jailed.

and i will even go as far as to giving a time of the past 10 years.  But to be fair the republican party is no better, they are the biggest cowards in the face of adversity ready to bend over backwards as to not seem racist, hateful, what ever you name it. Where as the democrats are liars, trouble starters,race baiters, bigots, hypocrites, false saviors , false everything, and get a big round of applause for being able to scare the coward party into submission.

We would be better off at this point in time as independent states than under the two party machine that is destroying those of us of faith to the Church, which by the way the Church is now more of a threat than it has ever been to politicians.

[CatherineM]

See, here's the thing.  We don't have to tell people stuff they already know.  Until someone questions an issue, we don't have to address it.  Just like we didn't have to tell people which books belonged in the Bible until after Luther decided to question the Bible that had been in place for over 1000 years before the Reformation. 

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

Type 'papal infallibility' into the vatican.va search engine and nothing comes up. That may be a hint that in general the magesterium doesn't believe the pope is infallible, though he can exercise the septre of infallibility if the holy spirit prompts him to, but than it is the holy spirit whom is infallible and telling the pope to put his foot down in such circumstances. But than i also read when i was searching the vatican search engine one time that we are as lay catholics are to assume the infallibility of many of the magesteriums teachings.

Edited July 16, 2015 by Tab'le De'Bah-Rye

[Credo in Deum]

Type 'papal infallibility' into the vatican.va search engine and nothing comes up. That may be a hint that in general the magesterium doesn't believe the pope is infallible, though he can exercise the septre of infallibility if the holy spirit prompts him to, but than it is the holy spirit whom is infallible and telling the pope to put his foot down in such circumstances. But than i also read when i was searching the vatican search engine one time that we are as lay catholics are to assume the infallibility of many of the magesteriums teachings.

This smells phishy.

Also from the CCC at Vatican.Va

889 In order to preserve the Church in the purity of the faith handed on by the apostles, Christ who is the Truth willed to confer on her a share in his own infallibility. By a "supernatural sense of faith" the People of God, under the guidance of the Church's living Magisterium, "unfailingly adheres to this faith."⁴¹⁷

890 The mission of the Magisterium is linked to the definitive nature of the covenant established by God with his people in Christ. It is this Magisterium's task to preserve God's people from deviations and defections and to guarantee them the objective possibility of professing the true faith without error. Thus, the pastoral duty of the Magisterium is aimed at seeing to it that the People of God abides in the truth that liberates. To fulfill this service, Christ endowed the Church's shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals. The exercise of this charism takes several forms:

891 "The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium," above all in an Ecumenical Council.⁴¹⁸ When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed,"⁴¹⁹ and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith."⁴²⁰ This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.⁴²¹

 

Edited July 16, 2015 by Credo in Deum

[dairygirl4u2c]

i dont buy the 'it was believed until it was needed to be defined' cause there is barely no mention of it. all doctrines even if later defined were at least talked about. 

 

then again, i did just find... Hormisdas formula in 519, which asserted that, "The Roman church has never erred (and will never err)." or maybe  “... in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved immaculate.”   i it would matter a lot if that parenthesis was original or not not. i dont know much about this formula or statement so i will look into it

Edited July 16, 2015 by dairygirl4u2c

[Nihil Obstat]

Type 'papal infallibility' into the vatican.va search engine and nothing comes up. That may be a hint that in general the magesterium doesn't believe the pope is infallible, though he can exercise the septre of infallibility if the holy spirit prompts him to, but than it is the holy spirit whom is infallible and telling the pope to put his foot down in such circumstances. But than i also read when i was searching the vatican search engine one time that we are as lay catholics are to assume the infallibility of many of the magesteriums teachings.

The search engine on the Vatican website is a pretty poor interpreter of the faith.

[KnightofChrist]

Is there a glitch in the Matrix? This feels like deja vu all over again. This thread has happened before but does thread have to happen again?

I hate this rerun *turns channel*

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium,

 

I'm doubting the pope is always speaking definitively, what about when he tells a joke? And also i'm doubting the congregation of bishops is always exercising this 'supreme Magesterium.' 

How is it that we can read these documents so differently, and i really wish a phat priest would make a response to all of this.

you guys seem to miss the keywords of what i say and what these documents say.  But than of course i could be mis interpreting these words, as so could you.

Edited July 21, 2015 by Tab'le De'Bah-Rye