dairygirl4u2c Posted March 11, 2005 Share Posted March 11, 2005 Also, I just thought I'd say about Galileo again. Infallibility wasn't declared until the 1800's. So every statement before then could be wrong, but because it wasn't stated, they can sidestep things like geocentrisity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleLes Posted March 11, 2005 Author Share Posted March 11, 2005 Hi Dairygirl4u2c, Did you ever wonder why it took the Church about 1900 years to discover that it was infallible? I wonder what it will discover next. LittleLes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Eremite Posted March 11, 2005 Share Posted March 11, 2005 [quote]I'm afraid that Pius XII does not claim that a scriptural passage supports the Assumption.[/quote] Ok. You'll have to look elsewhere, then. [quote]And if you reread the 4th century Epiphaenus, you will note he says nothing about an Assumption either.[/quote] While Epiphanius was not certain on the matter, he did very strongly favor it: "Let them search the scriptures. They will not find Mary's death; they will not find whether she died or did not die; they will not find whether she was buried or was not buried. More than that: John journeyed to Asia, yet nowhere do we read that he took the holy Virgin with him. Rather, Scripture is absolutely silent [on Mary's earthly end] because of the extraordinary nature of the prodigy, in order not to shock the minds of men. . . . Neither do I maintain stoutly that she died. . . .Did she die? We do not know. At all events, if she was buried, she had no carnal intercourse. . . . Or she remained alive, since nothing is impossible with God and he can do whatever he desires." (Panarion, 4th century). St. Ephraem also lived in the fourth century: "The babe that I carry carries me, and He hath lowered His wings and taken and placed me between His pinions and mounted into the air, and a promise has been given me that height and depth shall be my Son's" [quote]you neglected to tell us that it was apocryphal"[/quote] My exact quote was "the old Catholic Encyclopedia indicates that it is found in the APOCRYPHAL work 'De Obitu S. Dominae'." I didn't neglect it. [quote]the best we can evidence is a legend that began in the 4th or 5th century and became popular.[/quote] Not quite. First, the Assumption was an Apostolic tradition. Like the Apostolic writings, it was not something that was passed on in a major way (ie, the Apostles didn't clarify to everyone what books were inspired; their authorship was something which was just understood by the local Church to whom it was sent). In the same way, the Assumption was an event witnessed by the Apostles, but it wasn't something that was stressed as, say, the Lord's ressurection was. Thus, over time, its authenticity as an apostolic tradition was not necessarily certain (much as the inspiration of some biblical books was not necessarily certain). Over time, reflecting on the inspired words of Scripture, the Fathers of the Church embraced it as an Apostolic tradition, handed on orally, and confirmed in the implicit words of Sacred Scripture. [quote]That, of course, creates a little problem with the "no new dogma" restriction on infallibility stated by Vatican I.[/quote] It isn't a new dogma. It is simply a truth that took time to fully draw out of Scripture and Tradition. As you may or may not know, the Church makes no claim to have some infused knowledge of everything the Lord has revealed. It is her job to draw it out over the centuries. The Lord has promised his guidance and protection in this task. [quote]But this was written before the Assumption became "dogma."[/quote] Again, not quite. While it was proclaimed solemnly and definitely by Pius XII, its truthfulness was held long before him. Dogma, while commonly mistaken as only doctrine proclaimed solemnly by a Pope, encompasses the definitive ordinary faith of the Church. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Eremite Posted March 11, 2005 Share Posted March 11, 2005 [quote]Infallibility wasn't declared until the 1800's. So every statement before then could be wrong, but because it wasn't stated, they can sidestep things like geocentrisity.[/quote] Suffice it to say, this is not true. If you insist on caricaturing Catholicism, I'm afraid you're not going to get very far in the area of dialogue. Just a suggestion. [quote] Did you ever wonder why it took the Church about 1900 years to discover that it was infallible? I wonder what it will discover next.[/quote] See above. "Let him hasten before all things to satisfy the Roman see, for if it is satisfied all will agree in calling him pious and orthodox. For he only speaks in vain who thinks he ought to persuade or entrap persons like myself, and does not satisfy and implore the blessed pope of the most holy Church of the Romans, that is, the Apostolic see, which from the incarnate Son of God Himself, and also by all holy synods, according to the holy canons and definitions, has received universal and supreme dominion, authority and power of binding and loosing over all the holy Churches of God which are in the whole world"--St. Maximus the Confessor, seventh century. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleLes Posted March 11, 2005 Author Share Posted March 11, 2005 Hi Emeite, I'm afraid that you are getting your posters mixed up. I am not caricaturing Catholism. that wasn't my post that you've responded to. But, if I understand it correctly, it's basically the same question that two other posters were disagreeing about. And I think it was an honest comment. My position is that the criteria for infallible teachings are retroactive. It doesn't matter that the pope or council didn't know that they were infallible for their teachings to be infallible if the criteria were met. On the other hand, it is also my position (and I think theologians would back this), that infallible pronouncements have to be interpreted by the plain meaning of words of the speaker, but recognizing what the words meant to the speaker at the time spoken. (Is that clear?) Giving a facetious example, if the Pope declared ex cathedra that something was "really cool," years from now someone should not argue that he was talking about it being cold. LittleLes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Eremite Posted March 11, 2005 Share Posted March 11, 2005 (edited) [quote]I am not caricaturing Catholism. that wasn't my post that you've responded to.[/quote] Water under the bridge. [quote]My position is that the criteria for infallible teachings are retroactive. It doesn't matter that the pope or council didn't know that they were infallible for their teachings to be infallible if the criteria were met.[/quote] I deny just that. The infallibility of the Church was nothing new at the First Vatican Council. What was not clear was in what circumstances the Roman Pontiff was infallible. The Church wanted to clearly delineate between his private or less formal teachings, and his formal, definitive teachings as the Bishop of Rome. The infallibility of the Church in general was not really a problem, because it was clearly understood that Ecumenical Councils taught infallibly in their entirety. [quote]infallible pronouncements have to be interpreted by the plain meaning of words of the speaker, but recognizing what the words meant to the speaker at the time spoken. (Is that clear?)[/quote] The teachings of the Roman Pontiffs are interpreted by the meaning intended, yes. This is not necessarily a "plain" meaning, because Catholic theology and history is not so simple. When considering a particular document (even a current one), it must be studied from many angles: general theology, historical circumstance, previous writings of the same Pontiff, etc. This task usually falls to theologians, and ultimately, to the Church itself, if there is any doubt in a specific case. [quote]if the Pope declared ex cathedra that something was "really cool," years from now someone should not argue that he was talking about it being cold.[/quote] No, you're general point is correct. The teachings of the Church are understood by the meaning given them by the Church, not the meaning we want to give them. As I explained above, this is not as "plain" a task as you might imagine. Edited March 11, 2005 by Eremite Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleLes Posted March 11, 2005 Author Share Posted March 11, 2005 Sorry Eremite, Apostolic tradition came from the apostles. It can't appear in the 4th or 5th century and claim to be an "apostolic tradition." Can you show any writing between say John or Revelation and the appearance of the 4th or 5th century writing claiming an Assumption of Mary? This cannot be presumed to exist, they must be demonstrated. So, in sum, we have no scriptural basis and no apostolic tradition that can be evidenced for the Assumption. Therefore, its a new doctrine, precisely what Vatican I claimed could not be the subject of infallibility. LittleLes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thessalonian Posted March 11, 2005 Share Posted March 11, 2005 (edited) [quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Mar 11 2005, 03:32 PM'] Also, I just thought I'd say about Galileo again. Infallibility wasn't declared until the 1800's. So every statement before then could be wrong, but because it wasn't stated, they can sidestep things like geocentrisity. [/quote] As I said, your a fourth grader (at best) trying to tell a College professor what is wrong with Calculus. I would never, and I don't think anyone else would or should say that before 1800 the Churches statements could be wrong. While the declaration of what infallibility is was declared at Vatican I it is the Churches position that infallibility was always in force and any declaratins that fit the criteria of infallibility BEFORE Vatican I should be held to the standard of the council. Ludwig Ott does go back through all the Popes and councils in his book "Dogma of CAtholicism and identifies the vast majority of statements that meet the criteria. He comes up with around 390 such statements. The statements regarding Galileo, however do not meet the critera of Vatican I. For instance this Holy Office statement that Les is trying to hold to the standard wouldn't even today be an infallible declaration. Holy Office's are not infallible bodies. Stop trying to interpret Catholic theology. Your horrible at it. And I do not say that with malice, it's just a fact. Edited March 11, 2005 by thessalonian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paphnutius Posted March 11, 2005 Share Posted March 11, 2005 [quote name='thessalonian' date='Mar 11 2005, 05:35 PM'] As I said, your a fourth grader (at best) trying to tell a College professor what is wrong with Calculus. I would never, and I don't think anyone else would or should say that before 1800 the Churches statements could be wrong. While the declaration of what infallibility is was declared at Vatican I it is the Churches position that infallibility was always in force and any declaratins that fit the criteria of infallibility BEFORE Vatican I should be held to the standard of the council. Ludwig Ott does go back through all the Popes and councils in his book "Dogma of CAtholicism and identifies the vast majority of statements that meet the criteria. He comes up with around 390 such statements. The statements regarding Galileo, however do not meet the critera of Vatican I. For instance this Holy Office statement that Les is trying to hold to the standard wouldn't even today be an infallible declaration. Holy Office's are not infallible bodies. Stop trying to interpret Catholic theology. Your horrible at it. And I do not say that with malice, it's just a fact. [/quote] I see this as a personal attack on dairygirl, thessalonian. I also see it as a breech in the virtue of charity. I am sorry but I am going to have to defend dairy's right to be treated as a respectful opponent in this matter. We can all learn from Aquinas and how he treated his opponents in discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thessalonian Posted March 11, 2005 Share Posted March 11, 2005 [quote name='LittleLes' date='Mar 11 2005, 03:35 PM'] Hi Dairygirl4u2c, Did you ever wonder why it took the Church about 1900 years to discover that it was infallible? I wonder what it will discover next. LittleLes [/quote] Littleles You are guite wrong Littless. There is a statement for instance in the 6th century, regarding the purity of the teachings of the Bishop of Rome signed by 2500 bishops. In the first and early second century writers such as Ignatius speak of the purity of the teachings of the Roman Church. Many other such statements are made. What the Church did in Vatican I was to explicitly express what had always been believed and apply a term to it, much like the Council of Nicea explicitly expressed the trinity and applied that term to it. The trinity had been believed from day one. I'll post the quotes if need be. God bless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Eremite Posted March 11, 2005 Share Posted March 11, 2005 [quote]Apostolic tradition came from the apostles. It can't appear in the 4th or 5th century and claim to be an "apostolic tradition."[/quote] I agree it came from the Apostles. Where I disagree is that what the Apostles passed on is always explicit, without the need for subsequent generations to discern whether a particular truth truly comes from an Apostle or not. The most obvious example of this is the Canon of Scripture. There was much disagreement in the first few centuries of the Church over the apostolic authenticity of certain books (among them, the epistles of Peter and Revelation). That it took the Church a few centuries to discern which books of Scripture come from the Apostles and which don't in no way detracts from her final judgement that the 27 books she has accepted are indeed Apostolic. In the same way, that it took a few centuries to fully draw out and discern the Apostolic origins of the Assumption in no way detracts from its Apostolic authenticity. [quote]Can you show any writing between say John or Revelation and the appearance of the 4th or 5th century writing claiming an Assumption of Mary? This cannot be presumed to exist, they must be demonstrated.[/quote] I have already indicated the Psalm wherein the Assumption of Mary is prophesied. As I explained, Scripture is used to confirm an Apostolic tradition which may be doubtful. I trust the Fathers of the Church to discern what was authentic oral tradition more than I trust you (indeed, more than I trust myself). Their confirmation of the tradition, together with the implicit witness of Sacred Scripture, is sufficient for me. [quote]So, in sum, we have no scriptural basis and no apostolic tradition that can be evidenced for the Assumption.[/quote] We in fact have both, as I have already layed out. Your reception of the canon of Scripture, despite no formal Apostolic declaration on the matter, places you in no position to question the practice of taking the Fathers of the Church at their word and judgement. If the Fathers of the Church are to be rejected in relation to the Assumption, because there is no explicit Apostolic witness to it, then the Fathers of the Church must be rejected in relation to the Canon fo Scripture, because there is no explicit Apostolic witness in that regard either. The Church trusts the post apostolic and patristic generations to deliver and discern faithfully what the Apostles handed on. You do as well, although you are loathed to admit it. [quote]its a new doctrine, precisely what Vatican I claimed could not be the subject of infallibility[/quote] No, it's not, it's a truth witnessed by the Apostles, which took a few centuries to fully draw out and discern as a valid Apostolic tradition. But I feel like we're going in circles... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thessalonian Posted March 11, 2005 Share Posted March 11, 2005 [quote]I see this as a personal attack on dairygirl, thessalonian. I also see it as a breech in the virtue of charity. I am sorry but I am going to have to defend dairy's right to be treated as a respectful opponent in this matter. We can all learn from Aquinas and how he treated his opponents in discussion. [/quote] What it is is blunt honesty. I mean no malice toward dairy. Would you rather I quoted some verse like "cast pearls" or "brood of vipers". Blunt honesty is neccessary sometimes. It is charity. God bless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dairygirl4u2c Posted March 11, 2005 Share Posted March 11, 2005 (edited) Actually, I'm not saying that Church statements could be wrong per se the way you understand I'm saying it. I'm saying they could be wrong then, and later retrospectively say that it didn't meet the criteria that you are at the moment making. I think you're just understanding what I meant.. i knew I should have clarified. Example. I'm saying that the Catholic Church probably taught the geocentric notion as dogma. That's probably why he was accused of heresy. According to the Catholic Church definition now, that dogma probably met the Ordinary Magistratial standards of infallibility. (this is where we break out the research to really say for sure) For one, by never really defining what the ordinary magistarium teaches, catholics can always say retrospectively that this or that idea was or wasn't taught. For two, because they didn't know they had to declare something infallible, they didn't, thus we can't hold them liable for just believing and teaching something like geocentricity. Catholic would claim it was never taught as definitive. Note, I'm not saying that you can't teach something without it being infallibe according to the Catholic Church. I'm saying that you can be very manipulative as I described above. Edited March 11, 2005 by dairygirl4u2c Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleLes Posted March 11, 2005 Author Share Posted March 11, 2005 Sorry Thesslonian, "Purity" is a long way from infallible. And as I recall there was this chap named Arius and a large following of bishops who didn't exactly accept the Trinity until the Emperor Constantine kicked some episcopal bootie and went with Athansius. 325 wasn't it.? And there were only two references to the Trinity in scripture: the Johnnaine comma which entered the text from a marginal note in a sixth century Latin text (since removed), and Matt 28 which has baptism in the name of the Trinity before there was a Trinity. Acts describes baptism four times always in the name of Jesus alone. So, as with 1 John 5, Matt 28 seems to have been a later interpolation. There's no evidence that there was "always a belief in the Trinity." That a little Catholic fiction for the true believers. But if there had been there would have been no need for Nicea, would there? Little les Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleLes Posted March 11, 2005 Author Share Posted March 11, 2005 And sorry again Thesslonians, It's Vatican I's "infallible" teaching on the interpretation of scripture that the Holy Office's actions disproved. Didn't I give you the precise reference yesterday? Littleles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts