The Charism of Infallibility

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Jul 15 2005, 09:16 PM']Yeah, unlike Littleles and Raymond Brown, the Catholic Apologists make sense! 
[right][snapback]644939[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE, PART 2:

Yes . I'm always fascinated with the blind faith some Catholics put in Catholic apologists.

For example, realizing that there is a serious historical question as to whether Peter was ever the bishop of Rome and needing to prove this for doctrinal reasons, apologist like to quote from Clement of Rome's Epistle to James in the hope that most Catholics will remain gullible and not check the reference:

Epistle of Clement to James
------------
Clement to James, the lord, and the bishop of bishops, who rules Jerusalem, the holy church of the Hebrews, and the churches everywhere excellently rounded by the providence of God, with the elders and deacons, and the rest of the brethren, peace be always.

1 -- Peter's Martyrdom.

"Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon, who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus Himself, with His truthful mouth, named Peter, the first-fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect, and associate at table and in the journeyings of Christ; the excellent and approved disciple, who, as being fittest of all, was commanded to enlighten the darker part of the world, namely the West, and was enabled to accomplish it, -- and to what extent do I lengthen my discourse, not wishing to indicate what is sad, which yet of necessity, though reluctantly, I must tell you, -- he himself, by reason of his immense love towards men, having come as far as Rome, clearly and publicly testifying, in opposition to the wicked one who withstood him, that there is to be a good King over all the world, while saving men by his God-inspired doctrine, himself, by violence, exchanged this present existence for life."

But unfortunately this is another of the pseudo-Isidorian decretals. In fact, most of the writings attributed to Clement are spurious.

As even the Catholic Encyclopedia admits:

"II. PSEUDO-CLEMENTINE WRITINGS

"Many writings have been falsely attributed to Pope St. Clement I:

"At the head of the Pseudo-Isidorian decretals stand five letters attributed to St. Clement. The first is the letter of Clement to James translated by Rufinus (see III); the second is another letter to James, found in many MSS. of the "Recognitions". The other three are the work of Pseudo-Isidore (See FALSE DECRETALS.) "

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Jul 15 2005, 09:16 PM']Yeah, unlike Littleles and Raymond Brown, the Catholic Apologists make sense! 
[right][snapback]644939[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE PART 3.

One of the most quoted apologists was the fourth century historian Eusebius (the chap who told us the Peter was bishop of Rome for 25 years).

He also told us this:

"1. Letter Attributed to our Lord:

The letter attributed to our Lord is given in Eusebius (Historia Ecclesiastica, I, 13) who records that in his day a copy of the letter was to be found among the archives of Edessa. Abgarus, king of Osroene, which was a small country in Mesopotamia, writes from Edessa, the capital, to our Lord, asking for healing and offering Him protection. Our Lord sends back a short letter saying that He cannot leave Palestine, but that, after His ascension, a messenger will come and heal Abgarus. The letters are obviously spurious. Osroene was actually Christianized about the beginning of the 3rd century, and the legend took shape and received official sanction in order to show that the country had received the Gospel at a much earlier date"

Eusebius' writings are on line at New Advent for those who want to check Eusebius' story!

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Jul 16 2005, 08:47 AM']And just where did that quote come from?  More quoting without sourcing.  Typical......no credence.

[/quote]

RESPONSE TWO:

From Les's original post for which CAM wants a reference:

This is from his Summa Theologica, 2/2, question 1:
“Consequently to publish a new edition of the symbol belongs to that authority which is empowered to decide matters of faith finally, so that they may be held by all with unshaken faith. Now this belongs to the authority of the Sovereign Pontiff, "to whom the more important and more difficult questions that arise in the Church are referred," as stated in the Decretals [Dist. xvii, Can. 5].”

But then CAM tells me:

That is not from question two article one of the Prima Pars; Secunda Pars. This is:

So first CAM accuses me of quoting without sourcing (of course I did in the first line), but then quoting incorrectly and he quotes something different avoiding Aquinas' faux pas.

But note, CAM doesn't challenge the evidence itself. Just tries to avoid it.
I find many apologists use that tactic.

[Cam42]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 16 2005, 11:08 AM']RESPONSE:

When you check my "sources," please begin to do so correctly.  Note that my reference is to 2/2, that is the second section of the second part, not the second section of the first part as you quoted.

And perhaps I did presume too much in thinking that you were aware of Aquinas' Summa Theologica.

Once again:  "I answer that, As stated above (Objection 1), a new edition of the symbol becomes necessary in order to set aside the errors that may arise. Consequently to publish a new edition of the symbol belongs to that authority which is empowered to decide matters of faith finally, so that they may be held by all with unshaken faith. Now this belongs to the authority of the Sovereign Pontiff, "to whom the more important and more difficult questions that arise in the Church are referred," as stated in the Decretals [Dist. xvii, Can. 5.].
[right][snapback]645350[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

You need to cite your sources properly. You didn't do that, however, here is what that says:

[quote name='Summa Theologica II;II:II:I']Whether to believe is to think with assent?

Objection 1: It would seem that to believe is not to think with assent. Because the Latin word "cogitatio" [thought] implies a research, for "cogitare" [to think] seems to be equivalent to "coagitare," i.e. "to discuss together." Now Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iv) that faith is "an assent without research." Therefore thinking has no place in the act of faith.

Objection 2: Further, faith resides in the reason, as we shall show further on (Question [4], Article [2]). Now to think is an act of the cogitative power, which belongs to the sensitive faculty, as stated in the FP, Question [78], Article [4]. Therefore thought has nothing to do with faith.

Objection 3: Further, to believe is an act of the intellect, since its object is truth. But assent seems to be an act not of the intellect, but of the will, even as consent is, as stated above (FS, Question [15], Article [1], ad 3). Therefore to believe is not to think with assent.

On the contrary, This is how "to believe" is defined by Augustine (De Praedest. Sanct. ii).

I answer that, "To think" can be taken in three ways. First, in a general way for any kind of actual consideration of the intellect, as Augustine observes (De Trin. xiv, 7): "By understanding I mean now the faculty whereby we understand when thinking." Secondly, "to think" is more strictly taken for that consideration of the intellect, which is accompanied by some kind of inquiry, and which precedes the intellect's arrival at the stage of perfection that comes with the certitude of sight. In this sense Augustine says (De Trin. xv, 16) that "the Son of God is not called the Thought, but the Word of God. When our thought realizes what we know and takes form therefrom, it becomes our word. Hence the Word of God must be understood without any thinking on the part of God, for there is nothing there that can take form, or be unformed." In this way thought is, properly speaking, the movement of the mind while yet deliberating, and not yet perfected by the clear sight of truth. Since, however, such a movement of the mind may be one of deliberation either about universal notions, which belongs to the intellectual faculty, or about particular matters, which belongs to the sensitive part, hence it is that "to think" is taken secondly for an act of the deliberating intellect, and thirdly for an act of the cogitative power.

Accordingly, if "to think" be understood broadly according to the first sense, then "to think with assent," does not express completely what is meant by "to believe": since, in this way, a man thinks with assent even when he considers what he knows by science [*Science is certain knowledge of a demonstrated conclusion through its demonstration.], or understands. If, on the other hand, "to think" be understood in the second way, then this expresses completely the nature of the act of believing. For among the acts belonging to the intellect, some have a firm assent without any such kind of thinking, as when a man considers the things that he knows by science, or understands, for this consideration is already formed. But some acts of the intellect have unformed thought devoid of a firm assent, whether they incline to neither side, as in one who "doubts"; or incline to one side rather than the other, but on account of some slight motive, as in one who "suspects"; or incline to one side yet with fear of the other, as in one who "opines." But this act "to believe," cleaves firmly to one side, in which respect belief has something in common with science and understanding; yet its knowledge does not attain the perfection of clear sight, wherein it agrees with doubt, suspicion and opinion. Hence it is proper to the believer to think with assent: so that the act of believing is distinguished from all the other acts of the intellect, which are about the true or the false.

Reply to Objection 1: Faith has not that research of natural reason which demonstrates what is believed, but a research into those things whereby a man is induced to believe, for instance that such things have been uttered by God and confirmed by miracles.

Reply to Objection 2: "To think" is not taken here for the act of the cogitative power, but for an act of the intellect, as explained above.

Reply to Objection 3: The intellect of the believer is determined to one object, not by the reason, but by the will, wherefore assent is taken here for an act of the intellect as determined to one object by the will.[/quote]

So....the Second Part of the Second Part; Question 2, article 1 really has nothing to do with what you are talking about. The only [i]faux pas[/i] is from you. I am avoiding nothing, but rather pointing out that you are the one who knows nothing about Aquinas. Nice attempt though.

[Kilroy the Ninja]

Perhaps you should try to get back to the original topic of your thread Les.

And if anyone will show me (possibly again) where this topic has been brought up before here, I will happily merge this thread with that thread. Unless it's closed, in which case, it's done.

Thank you and God Bless

[Cam42]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Jul 15 2005, 11:12 AM']Welcome to summer repeats
[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=30478"]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=30478[/url]
[right][snapback]644431[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

There ya go Kilroy....close away.....

[Jaime]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Jul 15 2005, 10:12 AM']Welcome to summer repeats
[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=30478"]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=30478[/url]
[right][snapback]644431[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

This doesn't qualify? Ok Granted Littleles never actually brought up anything that had to do with Infallibility. But we're going to go down the exact same road


rabble rabble rabble Usurey, rabble rabble

rabble rabble rabble Galileo, rabble rabble


rabble rabble rabble slavery rabble rabble

rabble rabble rabble heretics, rabble rabble

[LittleLes]

That infallibility in the Church exists is questionable; that it is confined to the bishops and the Pope is even more suspect.

John Henery Newman, who believed in infallibility in the whole Church, was very uncomfortable limiting it to the bishops and the Pope.

John Henry Newman (1801-1890), before Vatican I wrote,

"On Consulting the Faithful in Matters of Doctrine, July 1859"

"As to the present, certainly, if there ever was an age which might dispense with the testimony of the faithful, and leave the maintenance of the truth to the pastors of the Church, it is the age in which we live. Never was the Episcopate of Christendom so devoted to the Holy See, so religious, so earnest in the discharge of its special duties, so little disposed to innovate, so superior to the temptation of theological sophistry. And perhaps this is the reason why the "consensus fidelium" has, in the minds of many, fallen into the background. Yet each constituent portion of the Church has its proper functions, and no portion can safely be neglected. Though the laity be but the reflection or echo of the clergy in matters of faith, yet there is something in the "pastorum et fidelium conspiratio," which is not in the pastors alone."

This idea did go over too well at the Vatican, and, as we shall see, Newman's voice came to be viewed with some concern.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Jul 16 2005, 12:38 PM']This doesn't qualify? Ok Granted Littleles never actually brought up anything that had to do with Infallibility.  But we're going to go down the exact same road
rabble rabble rabble Usurey, rabble rabble

rabble rabble rabble Galileo, rabble rabble
rabble rabble rabble slavery  rabble rabble

rabble rabble rabble heretics, rabble rabble
[right][snapback]645466[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

The question should be is my data correct. Not whether or not you like it or want to hear it. Apologetic "lets pretend" knows no limits, nor is it tolerant of any dissent with its claims.

[Cam42]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 16 2005, 01:51 PM']That infallibility in the Church exists is questionable; that it is confined to the bishops and the Pope is even more suspect.

John Henery Newman, who believed in infallibility in the whole Church, was very uncomfortable limiting it to the bishops and the Pope.

John Henry Newman (1801-1890), before Vatican I wrote,

"On Consulting the Faithful in Matters of Doctrine, July 1859"

"As to the present, certainly, if there ever was an age which might dispense with the testimony of the faithful, and leave the maintenance of the truth to the pastors of the Church, it is the age in which we live. Never was the Episcopate of Christendom so devoted to the Holy See, so religious, so earnest in the discharge of its special duties, so little disposed to innovate, so superior to the temptation of theological sophistry. And perhaps this is the reason why the "consensus fidelium" has, in the minds of many, fallen into the background. Yet each constituent portion of the Church has its proper functions, and no portion can safely be neglected. Though the laity be but the reflection or echo of the clergy in matters of faith, yet there is something in the "pastorum et fidelium conspiratio," which is not in the pastors alone."

This idea did go over too well at the Vatican, and, as we shall see, Newman's voice came to be viewed with some concern.
[right][snapback]645473[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

What does Cardinal Newman say AFTER Vatican Council I, which solemnly defined Papal infalliblity? Forgot to mention that didn't you. We all know that Cardinal Newman had resevervations.....big deal, it was his perogative.....what did Cardinal Newman say after Vatican Council I? That is the key, LittleLes.

[Socrates]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 16 2005, 12:51 PM']That infallibility in the Church exists is questionable; that it is confined to the bishops and the Pope is even more suspect.

John Henery Newman, who believed in infallibility in the whole Church, was very uncomfortable limiting it to the bishops and the Pope.

John Henry Newman (1801-1890), before Vatican I wrote,

"On Consulting the Faithful in Matters of Doctrine, July 1859"

"As to the present, certainly, if there ever was an age which might dispense with the testimony of the faithful, and leave the maintenance of the truth to the pastors of the Church, it is the age in which we live. Never was the Episcopate of Christendom so devoted to the Holy See, so religious, so earnest in the discharge of its special duties, so little disposed to innovate, so superior to the temptation of theological sophistry. And perhaps this is the reason why the "consensus fidelium" has, in the minds of many, fallen into the background. Yet each constituent portion of the Church has its proper functions, and no portion can safely be neglected. Though the laity be but the reflection or echo of the clergy in matters of faith, yet there is something in the "pastorum et fidelium conspiratio," which is not in the pastors alone."

This idea did go over too well at the Vatican, and, as we shall see, Newman's voice came to be viewed with some concern.
[right][snapback]645473[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

1) Cardinal Newman nowhere denies the doctrine of papal infallibility.

2) Nobody claims that Newman is infallible.

Edited July 16, 2005 by Socrates

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Jul 16 2005, 01:11 PM']What does Cardinal Newman say AFTER Vatican Council I, which solemnly defined Papal infalliblity?  Forgot to mention that didn't you.  We all know that Cardinal Newman had resevervations.....big deal, it was his perogative.....what did Cardinal Newman say after Vatican Council I?  That is the key, LittleLes.
[right][snapback]645496[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

I'll be dealing with Vatican I defining papal infallibility this evening.

Keep in mind, any bishop opposing papal infallibility after it had been vote in automatically became a heretic, could be removed from the clerical state, and lose all beneficies.

So as someone noted, Pius IX made the bishops an offer they couldn't refuse!

But I'm not sure if they were still burning heretics in 1870.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Jul 16 2005, 05:08 PM']1) Cardinal Newman nowhere denies the doctrine of papal infallibility.

2) Nobody claims that Newman is infallible.
[right][snapback]645736[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

A bishop doesn't deny papal infallibility and remain a bishop.

[LittleLes]

(1) Ultramontanism, Rome centered Catholicism, was at odds with Gallicism, which opposed Roman papal centralization.

(2) Pope Pius IX believed in his own infallibility. He reigned from 1846 to 1878. During this long reign, he shaped the episcopate by appointing men favorable to his point of view. (It should be noted that the same could be said for Pope John Paul II).

(3) He prohibited bishops from holding national councils.

(4) Pius IX, the author of the "Syllabus of Errors," called the First Vatican Council which began on 8 December 1869.

(5) The key committee which would draft any document on papal infallibility was De Fide chaired by Cardinal Manning. Manning prohibited membership on this committee to anyone not favoring papal infallibility.

(6) A motion of closure ending debate on a topic could be made at the request of any ten bishops.

(7) Contrary to tradition, any motion could be carried by a mere majority vote.

(8) Sixty bishops, unable in conscience to support the concept of papal infallibility, simply departed Rome.

(9) The text approving the doctrine of papal infallibility was voted in on July 18, 1870.

(10) Thereafter, any bishop refusing to submit to papal infallibilioty was a formal heretic and could be expelled from his position and the Catholic Church.

Question: Might Vatican I be consider a coerced council?

Primary reference: "A Concise History of the Catholic Church, Revised and Expanded Edition, Fr. Thomas Bokenkotter, Image Books, NY, 1990, pp 284-293

Other references on the history of Vatican I:

Realism and Nationalism, Robert Binkley, Harper and Row, NY, 1963

The Vatican Council, 1869-1870, Cuthbert Butler, Newman Press, Maryland, 1962

How the Pope Becamce Infallible; Pius IX and the Politics of Persuasion, August B. Hasler, Doubleday, NY, 1981

The First Council of the Vatican, the American Experience, James Hennessey, S.J., Herder and Herder, NY, 1963

Popular Catholicism in Nineteenth Century Germany, Jonathan Sperber, Princeton University Press, 1984

[Cam42]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 16 2005, 10:40 PM']RESPONSE:

A bishop doesn't deny papal infallibility and remain a bishop.
[right][snapback]645978[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Show me where he has denied papal infalliblity after Vatican Council I.

I assert the contrary:

[quote name='From letter to Alfred Plummer' date=' July 19, 1872. Letters and Diaries of John Henry Newman, C.S. Dessain and T. Gornall S.J. editors, Volume XXVI, p. 139 (1974)']"I have for these 25 years spoken in behalf of the Pope's infallibility. The other day a review (I forget what) observed with surprise that even in my article on la Mennais in 1838 I had tacitly accepted the Pope's infallibility. I think I have spoken for it in my Essay on Development of Doctrine in 1845. In 1850 I have introduced the Pope's Infallibility several times into my lectures at the Birmingham Corn Exchange. In 1852 I introduced it most emphatically and dogmatically into my lectures delivered at the Rotundo at Dublin. In 1856 I spoke of it in a new Preface I prefixed to the new Edition of my Church of the Fathers—and in 1868 I reprinted the passage from my Dublin Lectures in a collection of passages made by a Roman Jesuit Father on the dogma, in an Italian translation."[/quote]

[quote name='John Henry Cardinal Newman' date=' 27 July 1870']But there are other means by which I can be brought under the obligation of receiving a doctrine as a dogma. If I am clear that there is a primitive and uninterrupted tradition, as of the divinity of our Lord; or where a high probability drawn from Scripture or Tradition is partially or probably confirmed by the Church. Thus a particular Catholic might be so nearly sure that the promise to Peter in Scripture proves that the infallibility of Peter is a necessary dogma, as only to be kept from holding it as such by the absence of any judgment on the part of the Church, so that the present unanimity of the Pope and 500 Bishops, even though not sufficient to constitute a formal Synodal act, would at once put him in the position, and lay him under the obligation, of receiving the doctrine as a dogma, that is, to receive it with its anathema.[/quote]

Newman actually responds to those, who, like you LittleLes are trying to twist his words, he says:
[quote name='John Henry Cardinal Newman']IN beginning to speak of the Vatican Council, I am obliged from circumstances to begin by speaking of myself. The most unfounded and erroneous assertions have publicly been made about my sentiments towards it, and as confidently as they are unfounded. Only a few weeks ago it was stated categorically by some anonymous correspondent of a Liverpool paper, with reference to the prospect of my undertaking the task on which I am now employed, that it was, "in fact understood that at one time Dr. Newman was on the point of uniting with Dr. Dollinger and his party, and that it required the earnest persuasion of several members of the Roman Catholic Episcopate to prevent him from taking that step,"—an unmitigated and most ridiculous untruth in every word of it, nor would it be worth while to notice it here, except for its connexion with the subject on which I am entering.

But the explanation of such reports about me is easy. They arise from forgetfulness on the part of those who spread them, that there are two sides of ecclesiastical acts, that right ends are often prosecuted by very unworthy means, and that in consequence those who, like myself, oppose a line of action, are not necessarily opposed to the issue for which it has been adopted.  Jacob gained by wrong means his destined blessing. "All are not Israelites, who are of Israel," and there are partisans of Rome who have not the sanctity and wisdom of Rome herself.

I am not referring to anything which took place within the walls of the Council chambers; of that of course we know nothing; but even though things occurred there which it is not pleasant to dwell upon, that would not at all affect, not by an hair's breadth, the validity of the resulting definition, as I shall presently show. What I felt deeply, and ever shall feel, while life lasts, is the violence and cruelty of journals and other publications, which, taking as they professed to do the Catholic side, employed themselves by their rash language (though, of course, they did not mean it so), in unsettling the weak in faith, throwing back inquirers, and shocking the Protestant mind. Nor do I speak of publications only; a feeling was too prevalent in many places that no one could be true to God and His Church, who had any pity on troubled souls, or any scruple of "scandalizing those little ones who believe in" Christ, and of "despising and destroying him for whom He died."

It was this most keen feeling, which made me say, as I did continually, "I will not believe that the Pope's Infallibility will be defined, till defined it is."

Moreover, a private letter of mine became public property. That letter, to which Mr. Gladstone has referred with a compliment to me which I have not merited, was one of the most confidential I ever wrote in my life. I wrote it to my own Bishop, under a deep sense of the responsibility I should incur, were I not to speak out to him my whole mind. I put the matter from me when I had said my say, and kept no proper copy of the letter. To my dismay I saw it in the public prints: to this day I do not know, nor suspect, how it got there; certainly from no want of caution in the quarter to which it was addressed. I cannot withdraw it, for I never put it forward, so it will remain on the columns of newspapers whether I will or not; but I withdraw it as far as I can, by declaring that it was never meant for the public eye.[/quote]

He goes on to say:
[quote name='John Henry Cardinal Newman']So much as to my posture of mind before the Definition: now I will set down how I felt after it. On July 24, 1870, I wrote as follows:—

"I saw the new Definition yesterday, and am pleased at its moderation—that is, if the doctrine in question is to be defined at all. The terms are vague and comprehensive; and, personally, I have no difficulty in admitting it. The question is, does it come to me with the authority of an Ecumenical Council?

"Now the primâ facie argument is in favour of its having that authority. The Council was legitimately called; it was more largely attended than any Council before it; and innumerable prayers from the whole of Christendom, have preceded and attended it, and merited a happy issue of its proceedings.

"Were it not then for certain circumstances, under which the Council made the definition, I should receive that definition at once. Even as it is, if I were called upon to profess it, I should be unable, considering it came from the Holy Father and the competent local {302} authorities, at once to refuse to do so. On the other hand, it cannot be denied that there are reasons for a Catholic, till better informed, to suspend his judgment on its validity.

"We all know that ever since the opening of the Council, there has been a strenuous opposition to the definition of the doctrine; and that, at the time when it was actually passed, more than eighty Fathers absented themselves from the Council, and would have nothing to do with its act. But, if the fact be so, that the Fathers were not unanimous, is the definition valid? This depends on the question whether unanimity, at least moral, is or is not necessary for its validity? As at present advised I think it is; certainly Pius IV. lays great stress on the unanimity of the Fathers in the Council of Trent. 'Quibus rebus perfectis,' he says in his Bull of Promulgation, 'concilium tantâ omnium qui illi interfuerent concordiâ peractum fuit, ut consensum plane a Domino effectum esse constiterit; idque in nostris atque omnium oculis valdè mirabile fuerit."

"Far different has been the case now,—though the Council is not yet finished. But, if I must now at once decide what to think of it, I should consider that all turned on what the dissentient Bishops now do.

"If they separate and go home without acting as a body, if they act only individually, or as individuals, and each in his own way, then I should not recognize in their opposition to the majority that force, firmness, and unity of view, which creates a real case of want of moral unanimity in the Council.

"Again, if the Council continues to sit, if the dissentient {303} Bishops more or less take part in it, and concur in its acts; if there is a new Pope, and he continues the policy of the present; and if the Council terminates without any reversal or modification of the definition, or any effective movement against it on the part of the dissentients, then again there will be good reason for saying that the want of a moral unanimity has not been made out.

"And further, if the definition is consistently received by the whole body of the faithful, as valid, or as the expression of a truth, then too it will claim our assent by the force of the great dictum, 'Securus judicat orbis terrarum.'

"This indeed is a broad principle by which all acts of the rulers of the Church are ratified. But for it, we might reasonably question some of the past Councils or their acts."[/quote]

Time to recant LittleLes. Newman supports papal infalliblity.
[quote name='John Henry Cardinal Newman']"And I confess, the fact that all along for so many centuries the Head of the Church and Teacher of the faithful and Vicar of Christ has been allowed by God to assert virtually his own infallibility, is a great argument in favour of the validity of his claim.[/quote]

Oh, Cardinal Newman was never a bishop. Sorry Charlie....that argument holds no water.