The Charism of Infallibility

[Cam42]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Jul 17 2005, 11:03 AM']I haven't read this entire thread and I apologize. Actually I've just scanned over a couple individual posts (including the one quoted above).

Anyway, Newman's claim that the definition of papal infallibility was "inopportune" just means he thought the timing was bad. That's not to say that he thought the pope was wrong, that's silly. I've read some of what Newman said in the past and I recall perhaps concerns about the possible articulation as well as the timeliness given the ecumenical and political milieu of the time, but the man was a faithful Catholic, I have little doubt that he would have shed his blood to defend the truth of papal infallibility. I'll get you quotes sometime when I'm more awake and inspired... if you want.

cheers
[right][snapback]646352[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I thought that understanding English was a no-brainer Laudate....but alas....we are in LittleLes' world of fun.....he will read this as he wishes, not as it is actually written. No need to post Newman's defense, I already did. LittleLes won't address Newman's direct words.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Jul 17 2005, 11:49 AM']
[/quote]
It lies with you, LittleLes.

I have provided links to the Catholic Encyclopedia (which is apparently gospel to you) to support my position.

Are you ready to feel Little.....Les?
[quote=ibid.]Gregory IX, in 1230, ordered his chaplain and confessor, St. Raymond of Peñaforte (Pennafort), a Dominican, to form a new canonical collection destined to replace all former collections. It has been said that the pope by this measure wished especially to emphasize his power over the Universal Church. The papacy had, indeed, arrived at the zenith of its power. Moreover, a pope less favourably circumstanced would, perhaps, not have thought of so important a measure. Nevertheless, the utility of a new collection was so evident that it is needless to seek other motives than those which the pope himself gives in the Bull "Rex pacificus" of 5 September, 1234, viz., the inconvenience of recurring to several collections containing decisions most diverse and sometimes contradictory, exhibiting in some cases gaps and in others tedious length; moreover, on several matters the legislation was uncertain.

St. Raymond executed the work in about four years, and followed in it the method of the aforesaid "Quinque compilationes antiquæ". He borrowed from them the order of the subject-matter, the division into five books, of the books into titles and of the titles into chapters. Of the 1971 chapters which the Decretals of Gregory IX contain, 1771 are taken from the "Quinque compilationes antiquæ", 191 are due to Gregory IX himself, 7 are taken from decretals of Innocent III not inserted in the former collections, and 2 are of unknown origin. They are arranged, as a general rule, according to the order of the ancient collections, i. e. each title opens with the chapters of the first collection, followed by those of the second, and so on in regular order; then come those of Innocent III and finally those of Gregory IX. Almost all the rubrics, or headings of the titles, have also been borrowed from these collections, but several have been modified as regards detail. This method considerably lightened St. Raymond's task. However, he did more than simply compile the documents of former collections. He left out 383 decisions, modified several others, omitted parts when he considered it prudent to do So, filled up the gaps, and, to render his collection complete and concordant, cleared up doubtful points of the ancient ecclesiastical law by adding some new decretals. He indicated by the words et infra the passages excised by him in the former collections. They are called partes decis . The new compilation bore no special title, but was called "Decretales Gregorii IX" or sometimes "Compilatio sexta", i. e. the sixth collection with reference to the "Quinque compilationes antiquæ". It was also called "Collectio seu liber extra", i. e. the collection of the laws not contained (vagantes extra) in the "Decretum" of Gratian. Hence the custom of denoting this collection by the letter X (i. e. extra). [/quote]

Time to give it a rest LittleLes.....you are proven wrong. Gregory IX's decretals are what Aquinas was referencing......
[right][snapback]646388[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

I'm aware of all that. But in spite of your extensive URL, you have avoided answering the actual question.

What you need to evidence is that Thomas was using the Gregory IX collection of 1234, AND that the new collection contained a DIFFERENT document than the Gratian Decretals in the false decretals.

Since Thomas died in 1274 and obviously did his writing before his death, it seems highly improbable that there were copied and widely circulated any documents produced in 1234. Remember these had to be handcopied; the printing press was developed in 1450.

I'll await your evidence. But I fear we are getting a bit off the topic.
.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Jul 17 2005, 11:51 AM']I thought that understanding English was a no-brainer Laudate....but alas....we are in LittleLes' world of fun.....he will read this as he wishes, not as it is actually written.  No need to post Newman's defense, I already did.  LittleLes won't address Newman's direct words.
[right][snapback]646390[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

Cardinal Henry Newman On:
The True Notion of Papal Infallibility

"NOW I am to speak of the Vatican definition, by which the doctrine of the Pope's infallibility has become de fide, that is, a truth necessary to be believed, as being included in the original divine revelation, for those terms, revelation, depositum, dogma, and de fide, are correlatives; and I begin with a remark which suggests the drift of all I have to say about it. It is this:—that so difficult a virtue is faith, even with the special grace of God, in proportion as the reason is exercised, so difficult is it to assent inwardly to propositions, verified to us neither by reason nor experience, but depending for their reception on the word of the Church as God's oracle, that she has ever shown the utmost care to contract, as far as possible, the range of truths and the sense of propositions, of which she demands this absolute reception."


It sure doesn't sound like Newman believed in papal infallibility before he was told by the Church that he had to. But by doing so he got to keep his job by agreeing with the boss!

NOTE: "assent inwardly to propositions, verified to us neither by reason nor experience..."

[peach_cube]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 17 2005, 02:47 PM']RESPONSE:

I'm aware of all that. But  in spite of your extensive URL, you have avoided answering the  actual question.

What you need to evidence is that Thomas was using the Gregory IX collection of 1234, AND that the new collection contained a DIFFERENT document than the Gratian Decretals in the false decretals.

Since Thomas died in 1274  and obviously did his writing before his death, it seems highly improbable that there were copied and widely circulated any documents produced in 1234. Remember these had to be handcopied; the printing press was developed in 1450.

I'll await your evidence. But I fear we are getting a bit off the topic.
.
[right][snapback]646428[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Les, St. Thomas taught at the University of Paris, which was also one of the main copy centers in the middle ages. That would leave it as one of the first places to have a copy of the documents.

[Jaime]

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN

The most ironic line of day goes to


[quote]I'll await your evidence. But I fear we are getting a bit off the topic. wink.gif
.[/quote]

[Cam42]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 17 2005, 01:47 PM'][quote]It lies with you, LittleLes.

I have provided links to the Catholic Encyclopedia (which is apparently gospel to you) to support my position.

Are you ready to feel Little.....Les?[/quote]
RESPONSE:

I'm aware of all that. But in spite of your extensive URL, you have avoided answering the actual question.

What you need to evidence is that Thomas was using the Gregory IX collection of 1234, AND that the new collection contained a DIFFERENT document than the Gratian Decretals in the false decretals.

Since Thomas died in 1274 and obviously did his writing before his death, it seems highly improbable that there were copied and widely circulated any documents produced in 1234. Remember these had to be handcopied; the printing press was developed in 1450.

I'll await your evidence. But I fear we are getting a bit off the topic.
.
[right][snapback]646428[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

What are you talking about? It is clear what Aquinas is talking about. Also Aquinas had access, as one of the day's greatest scholastics, to the pertinent documents, unlike you.

Also these Decretals were moreso available to Aquinas, because not only did he teach at the University of Paris, as stated above, but also because Gregory had a great interest in the University of Paris...more evidence?

Keep talking....you will continue to talk yourself right into a hole.

[LittleLes]

Back to the original topic of the charism of infallibility.

I've outlined the events at Vatican I that evidence when it voted for papal infallibility, it was coerced. Thus, the vote would be invalid. It is suppose to be completely free and prompted by the Holy Spirit.

While I'm awaiting any challenge to the information I presented, lets press on with an examination of ex cathedra statements.

The Church has not provided a list of what are to be considerd infallible papal statements, but there is general agreement that at least two meet the criteria: the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception and the Doctrine of the Assumption.

Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus, chapter 4, number 6 proclaims that:

"For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles."

Not "some new doctrine" not found in "revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles"? Let's see.

Where in the New Testament or the deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles do we find any mention of an "assumption" of Mary?

[Cam42]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 17 2005, 02:24 PM']Back to the original topic of the charism of infallibility.

I've outlined the events at Vatican I that evidence  when it voted for papal infallibility, it was coerced. Thus, the vote would be invalid. It is suppose to be completely free and prompted by the Holy Spirit.

While I'm awaiting any challenge to the information I presented, lets press on with an examination of ex cathedra statements.

The Church has not provided a list of what are to be considerd infallible papal statements, but there is general agreement that at least two meet the criteria: the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception and the Doctrine of the Assumption.

Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus, chapter 4, number 6 proclaims that:

"For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles."

Not "some new doctrine" not found in "revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles"? Let's see.

Where in the New Testament  or the deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles do we find any mention of an "assumption" of Mary?
[right][snapback]646457[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

And has been shown.....the outline is corrupt. So, you need to start over. Sorry Charlie.....you have been found wanting, yet again.

[Cam42]

Now we move to the assumption again......



















Will someone please tell LittleLes that "the Sweeps" don't apply to bulletin boards, only television.....and re-runs don't help "the Sweeps."

[LittleLes]

[quote name='peach_cube' date='Jul 17 2005, 01:06 PM']Les, St. Thomas taught at the University of Paris, which was also one of the main copy centers in the middle ages.  That would leave it as one of the first places to have a copy of the documents.
[right][snapback]646446[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

Yes, didn't Thomas teach at the University of Paris from about 1245 to 1250? Yet as late as 1264 in his "Against the Errors of the Greeks" Thomas is still quoting from the false decretals. So evidently Paris didn't provide him with a copy of Gregory IX's collection.

What CAM needs to establish is that (1) Aquinas was using the Decretals of Gregory IX in his Summa, and (2) that the quotation Thomas cites is from that collection and not from the 1151 Gratian Decretum.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Jul 17 2005, 01:35 PM']And has been shown.....the outline is corrupt.  So, you need to start over.  Sorry Charlie.....you have been found wanting, yet again.
[right][snapback]646466[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


RESPONSE:

"Has been shown..." Really? When? And by whom?

Please provide your evidence that my outline of the events at Vatican I is in error. I thought I provided enough references to keep you happy.

Please be precise and list which of my statements is in error.

Or do you plan to claim "corrupt" without any evidence to support your assertion?

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Jul 17 2005, 01:36 PM']Now we move to the assumption again......

[/quote]

RESPONSE:

Yes, the evidence just won't go away, will it?

Looking forward to your rebuttal.

[Cam42]

I have provided enough proof. You need to rebut. However, you can't......enough said.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Jul 17 2005, 02:28 PM']I have provided enough proof.  You need to rebut.  However, you can't......enough said.
[right][snapback]646505[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

Please tell us which of the ten facts about the election at Vatican I quoted from Fr. Bokenkotters "The Concise History of the Catholic Church" (I cited about half a dozen additional references) which you have disproven?

Claiming that you have proven something when you haven't even attempted to suggests you believe the readership is very gullible.

LittleLes

[Cam42]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 17 2005, 08:27 PM']RESPONSE:

Please tell us which of the ten facts about the election at Vatican I quoted from  Fr. Bokenkotters  "The Concise History of the Catholic Church" (I cited about half a dozen additional references) which you have disproven?

Claiming that you have proven something when you haven't even attempted to suggests you believe the readership is very gullible.

LittleLes
[right][snapback]646794[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Not interested in your rhetoric. We know the truth about your trolling habits...incidentally, you have not cited one.