Challenge To Phatmass

[dairygirl4u2c]

Here are the criteria for infallibility:

[quote]
1.) ex cathedra statements by the Pope. A statement can be known as being ex cathedra if the Pope is speaking definitively on matters of faith and morals in a manner of accordance with his teaching office. (example from the early church: St. Pope Leo the Great: On the Anniversary of his Elevation to the Pontificate: Sermon III, section 4, beginning "When therefore we utter...")

2.) De Fide statements of the Councils (assuming the council is in communion with Rome). A de fide statement is also clear and definitive on matters of faith and morals, as the ex cathedra statement described above, however, rather than being issued by the Pope, it is issued by the bishops present at the council, who are in communion with the Roman Pontiff.

3.) Church teachings are also considered infallible even if they have not been defined in either of the above two methods if it meets the following parameters: It must be taught unanimously by all bishops in communion with the Holy Father, spread across the world. Thus, it would be incorrect to site Arian writings, even when it was at its height, for no Pope was ever an Arian, and all who espoused it were heretics, as was made clear at the Council of Nicea.[/quote]




Here is the challenge for phatmassers:

[quote]I remember some sumo wrestlers going at it and one of them saying something to the effect "the pope has only spoken ex cathedra two times!". (that's where I get my info, cheesy apologetic pictures) And the assumption and the immaculate conception seem to be two, which leaves your example Jeff unclear to me.

My sumo friends must be wrong.  



The ex cathedra and the counsils should be easy enough to find since it is black and white. But I'm not capable, I admit it. Can someone help me find the them?

And I might guess to start with encyclicals from popes (and bishops if they have "encyclicals"?) but does anyone else know how to find the third example? [/quote]

I have a hunch that even if we asked a canon lawyer, they'd say that some counsils and documents are infallible definitly, but the even those are open to debate as to whether or not this statement met certain criteria etc etc. And in general there are no lists because the lawyers need to check into the validity of the documents. Especially in regards to the third criteria but also somewhat in regards to the first two.

But this should be easy.. it's asking Catholics to find Catholic material.

This should be interesting. But Jeff and Apotheoun... there's always a chance with you two here. I'm lookin in your direction.

Edited August 9, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[Madonna]

[quote]I have a hunch that even if we asked a canon lawyer, they'd say that some counsils and documents are infallible definitly, but the even those are open to debate as to whether or not this statement met certain criteria etc etc.[/quote]

A council is not infallible. Doctrines and dogmas are infallible.

There are four conditions required for a Pope to speak (infallibly) ex cathedra:

[quote]
1) The Pope must be functioning as Pastor and supreme Doctor. It is not his teaching as a private or particular Doctor that is in question.

2) He must be dealing with matters of faith or morals, and it is only the proposed doctrine - not the adjoining considerations - the 'obiter dicta' that is guaranteed by infallibility.

3) He must intend to define; his teaching must be given with authority and with the intent that it be believed by the entire Church.

4) He must manifest his intention to bind all Catholics.

The Pope is not required to use any specific formulas to accomplish this. All that is required is that he clearly manifest his intention to compel the entire Church to accept his teaching as belonging to the deposit of the faith. [/quote]

I found [url="http://www.wandea.org.pl/papal-infallibility.htm"]this[/url] site helpful.

It is to my understanding that the Pope rarely uses this, and only in the case where a doctrine is under attack or unclear, such as in the case of Mary's Assumption.

I am still working on instances where the Pope has spoken ex cathedra. I'll hand it over to someone else for now.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

Read up on the different levels of the Magisterium. What is and isn't infallible isn't that complicated an issue.

Edited August 9, 2004 by thedude

[Aloysius]

a council of all the bishops in union with the Pope is infallible when it speaks on faith or morals.

[url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3801.htm"]Nicaea I[/url]
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3808.htm"]Constantinople I[/url]
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3810.htm"]Ephesus[/url]
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3811.htm"]Chalcedon[/url]
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3812.htm"]Constantinope II[/url]
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3813.htm"]Constantinope III[/url]
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3819.htm"]Nicaea II[/url]
[url="http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum08.htm"]Constantinople IV[/url]
[url="http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum09.htm"]Lateran I[/url]
[url="http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum10.htm"]Lateran II[/url]
[url="http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum11.htm"]Lateran III[/url]
[url="http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum12.htm"]Lateran IV[/url]
[url="http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum13.htm"]Lyons I[/url]
[url="http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum15.htm"]Council of Vienne[/url]
[url="http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum16.htm"]Council of Constance[/url]
[url="http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum17.htm"]Council of Basle[/url]
[url="http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum18.htm"]Lateran V[/url]
[url="http://history.hanover.edu/early/trent.html"]Council of Trent[/url]
[url="http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum20.htm"]Vatican I[/url]
[url="http://www.rc.net/rcchurch/vatican2/index.html"]Vatican II[/url]

Anything in those above links if it talks about FAITH or MORALS is infallible under the criteria of infallibility as defined by Vatican II
[quote]The infallibility promised to the Church
is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's
successor, they exercise the supreme teaching office. Now, the assent of
the Church can never be lacking to such definitions on account of the
same Holy Spirit's influence, through which Christ's whole flock is
maintained in the unity of the faith and makes progress in it.[44]
[/quote]
Lumen Gentium 25

All those above councils were the entire body of bishops together with Peter's successor. So anything contained in them that pertains to faith or morals is infallible.

[Madonna]

Thank you. I can stop looking now.

[Aloysius]

anyway, let me give you an example in those councils to help you out...

[b]this:[/b][quote]Canon 3. The great Synod has stringently forbidden any bishop, presbyter, deacon, or any one of the clergy whatever, to have a subintroducta dwelling with him, except only a mother, or sister, or aunt, or such persons only as are beyond all suspicion.  [/quote]From the First Nicean Council is [b]not [/b]something infallible, it is not a teaching regarding faith and morals.
[b]this:[/b][quote]We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten of his Father, of the substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance (homoousion, consubstantialem) with the Father. By whom all things were made, both which be in heaven and in earth. Who for us men and for our salvation came down [from heaven] and was incarnate and was made man. He suffered and the third day he rose again, and ascended into heaven. And he shall come again to judge both the quick and the dead. And [we believe] in the Holy Ghost. And whosoever shall say that there was a time when the Son of God was not (en pote hote ouk en), or that before he was begotten he was not, or that he was made of things that were not, or that he is of a different substance or essence [from the Father] or that he is a creature, or subject to change or conversion—all that so say, the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes them.
[/quote] from the First Nicean Council [b]IS [/b]infallible because it is discussing the Faith, and Nicea's teaching that castrating onesself is wrong is infallible, but the way of dealing with them is not a doctrine regarding morals, just the fact that it is wrong is a doctrine on morals.
[quote]Canon 1. If any one in sickness has been subjected by physicians to a surgical operation, or if he has been castrated by barbarians, let him remain among the clergy; but, if any one in sound health has castrated himself, it behoves that such an one, if [already] enrolled among the clergy, should cease [from his ministry], and that from henceforth no such person should be promoted. But, as it is evident that this is said of those who wilfully do the thing and presume to castrate themselves, so if any have been made eunuchs by barbarians, or by their masters, and should otherwise be found worthy, such men the Canon admits to the clergy. [/quote]

See, it's simple. The things the council says to govern actions taken by its members aren't infallible, but when the Council says something is morally right or wrong or something is of the faith, it is infallible. Simple.

[Guest JeffCR07]

Dairygirl, if you are asking for a definitive, infallible list that catelogs all infallible statements by the magesterium, then (to the best of my knowledge) you will have a hard time finding one.

This is not because it is difficult as to discern an infallible statement from a fallible one, but rather, is because of the sheer volume of material that one would have to cover and search in order to give a complete, accurate list.

One would have to read every papal letter, every written declaration of every council (as well as the internal proceedings), and have knowledge of the popular concencus and agreement of all the bishops in communion with the holy father across the ages. No one has the time to be able to review all of that material, even if they spent their entire life pursuing the lofty goal.

I would equate this to asking a protestant to provide me with an authoritative list of every dependable interpretation of scripture. It just cannot be done: too many people have written too much to be able to go through [i]all[/i] of it.

Keep in mind, I am not saying that there are some vast, limitless number of infallible decrees, just as a protestant would not say there is a vast, limitless number of dependable interpretations of scripture, but rather, we would both be saying that in order to give a comprehensive list, we would have to sort through all of the material, which cannot be done.


This having been said, Al, Madonna, and others have provided you with perfectly adequate means for disseminating between what is infallible and what is not, and you are more than properly equipped to take up the challenge that Al and ironmonk have put before you.

- Your Brother In Christ, Jeff

[dairygirl4u2c]

What counsils are not on that list and why? I realize you'd say councils that do not adhere to rome, and that is fair. But are there any other councils I should know about? For example, why isn't Carthage on there? etc Not part of the bishop of rome?

And what about those ex cathedras? Someone needs to answer to that. Are there only two or are there more such as the one Jeff mentioned? And it'd be nice if you said where and how you found them.


Basically it looks like if you count the two ex cathedras I know of, then there are like 22 instances that we have at our disposal to check into the validity of the Catholic Church. (other than general concensuses.. though I doubt if there was a concensus against the Catholic Church that it'd change anything) Is this 22 number a fair assesment? Remember don't say yes because of simplifing it down. If number three on the criteria is the only other means you know of then say so.

We need to define what is grounds for the check and why.

Edited August 9, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[Aloysius]

those are the councils that called ALL the bishops including the Bishop of Rome.

There are local councils, but they aren't considered infallible. it's only when all the bishops are called together with the bishop of Rome successor to St. Peter.

Here are local councils that the Pope was not present at and only some bishops.
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3818.htm"]Carthrage under Cyprian[/url]
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3802.htm"]Ancyra[/url]
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3803.htm"] Neocaesarea[/url]
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3805.htm"]Antioch in Encaeniis[/url]
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3804.htm"]Gangra[/url]
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3815.htm"]Sardica[/url]
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3809.htm"]Constantinople[/url]
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3806.htm"]Laodicea[/url]
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3817.htm"]Constantinople under Nectarius[/url]
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3816.htm"]Carthrage[/url]
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3814.htm"]Constantinople/"Trullo"/Quinisext [/url]

[Aloysius]

u can't really list ALL of the local councils.. but if you're looking to disprove something infallible you need not look to them anyway.

here's one local council
[url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/TOLEDO.HTM"]Toledo[/url]

There are many local councils, I can't list em all... I gave you all the earliest ones plus this little cool one to show you that they do not consist of all the Bishops like the ecumenical councils do.

[Aloysius]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Aug 9 2004, 04:23 PM'] What counsils are not on that list and why? I realize you'd say councils that do not adhere to rome, and that is fair. But are there any other councils I should know about? For example, why isn't Carthage on there? etc Not part of the bishop of rome?

And what about those ex cathedras? Someone needs to answer to that. Are there only two or are there more such as the one Jeff mentioned? And it'd be nice if you said where and how you found them.


Basically it looks like if you count the two ex cathedras I know of, then there are like 22 instances that we have at our disposal to check into the validity of the Catholic Church. (other than general concensuses.. though I doubt if there was a concensus against the Catholic Church that it'd change anything) Is this 22 number a fair assesment? Remember don't say yes because of simplifing it down. If number three on the criteria is the only other means you know of then say so.

We need to define what is grounds for the check and why. [/quote]
those 22 are the best we can do to list to you clear-cut places where you can find infallibility. there are plenty of other cases of infallibility, but it'd be impossible to find them all... you'd have to read through all the statements of all the popes in history and pick out the times where he defined faith and morals. there's TONS of cases of this, it'd be too hard to try to list them all. there are many ex cathedra papal statements, they are not all compiled in some clearcut way though, so you'll have to stick with the councils if you don't want to read through every statement of every pope discerning whether or not he's defining faith/morals as successor to St. Peter.

also: i forgot to list an Ecumenical Council: [url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/FLORENCE.HTM"]Florence[/url]
so that adds one more Ecumenical Council which is infallible on matters of faith/morals.

[Aloysius]

[b][u]Infallible Councils consisting of all the bishops including the Bishop of Rome[/u][/b]
[i]infallible on matters of faith and morals:[/i]
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3801.htm"]Nicaea I[/url]
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3808.htm"]Constantinople I[/url]
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3810.htm"]Ephesus[/url]
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3811.htm"]Chalcedon[/url]
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3812.htm"]Constantinope II[/url]
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3813.htm"]Constantinope III[/url]
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3819.htm"]Nicaea II[/url]
[url="http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum08.htm"]Constantinople IV[/url]
[url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/FLORENCE.HTM"]Florence[/url]
[url="http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum09.htm"]Lateran I[/url]
[url="http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum10.htm"]Lateran II[/url]
[url="http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum11.htm"]Lateran III[/url]
[url="http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum12.htm"]Lateran IV[/url]
[url="http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum13.htm"]Lyons I[/url]
[url="http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum15.htm"]Vienne[/url]
[url="http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum16.htm"]Constance[/url]
[url="http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum17.htm"]Basle[/url]
[url="http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum18.htm"]Lateran V[/url]
[url="http://history.hanover.edu/early/trent.html"]Council of Trent[/url]
[url="http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum20.htm"]Vatican I[/url]
[url="http://www.rc.net/rcchurch/vatican2/index.html"]Vatican II[/url]

[Laudate_Dominum]

dairygirl,

you would no doubt enjoy Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, The Christian Faith (by Dupius) and Denzinger's. These are sources I use for such purposes.

peace

[Aloysius]

Yeah that's just what I was thinking, i was trying to find an online text of that but couldnt.

[socalscout]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Aug 9 2004, 10:20 AM']Here are the criteria for infallibility:






Here is the challenge for phatmassers:



I have a hunch that even if we asked a canon lawyer, they'd say that some counsils and documents are infallible definitly, but the even those are open to debate as to whether or not this statement met certain criteria etc etc. And in general there are no lists because the lawyers need to check into the validity of the documents. Especially in regards to the third criteria but also somewhat in regards to the first two.

But this should be easy.. it's asking Catholics to find Catholic material.

This should be interesting. But Jeff and Apotheoun... there's always a chance with you two here. I'm lookin in your direction.  [/quote]
I am the Sumo picture creator. It is not "wrong", it was just not all encompassing nor meant to instruct on Papal infalliblity. Here is an explanation of the basis of the text in the picture but you must realize that the Popes Infallibility is not limited to formal Ex Cathedra Statements. Here is an answer from EWTN.

[quote]Vatican I and II and the Catechism point out a DISTINCTION between ORDINARY and EXTRAORDINARY Papal Infallibility.[/quote][quote] EXTRAORDINARY Papal Infallibility is when the Pope makes an EX CATHEDRA pronouncement and there have been only two of these in 2,000 years, i.e., the Immaculate Conception (1854) and the Assumption (1950) [/quote][quote]But Papal Infallibility is NOT limited to EX CATHEDRA statements since BOTH the ORDINARY and the EXTRAORDINARY Magisteria are INFALLIBLE. EX CATHEDRA and solemn decrees of ECUMENICAL COUNCILS are part of the EXTRAORDINARY (not that common) Magisterium and they are BOTH infallible.
The more common ORDINARY Magisterium is the Pope speaking through his encyclicals, allocutions, exhortations and apostolic letters as he did in HUMANAE VITAE and ORDINATIO SACERDOTALIS. Neither one of these invoked the EX CATHEDRA status of EXTRAORDINARY Magisterium but both Papal documents contained INFALLIBLE teachings, namely, on the sinfulness of artificial contraception and on the impossibility of ordaining women, respectively.

We cannot limit Papal Infallibility to ONLY EX CATHEDRA pronouncements. Vatican I and II make it clear that the ORDINARY Magisterium is equally infallible as is the EXTRAORDINARY Magisterium. It is merely the MEANS not the END that differs. Ordinary Magisterium is the CONSISTENT AND PERENNIAL AND UNIVERSAL teaching of the Pope and the Bishops in union with him when they teach day in and day out, but not within an Ecumenical Council nor from an EX CATHEDRA statement. EX CATHEDRA is a SPECIFIC and LIMITED concept whereas INFALLIBILITY is a term which encompasses a much wider and broader concept. [/quote]


Hope this helps.

Take Care.

Edited August 9, 2004 by socalscout