The Charism of Infallibility

[Socrates]

[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[/quote]
Thus far, for all your ramblings, you haven't given a single fact which proves Papal Infallibility wrong.

And furthermore, since you reject the Church's teaching authority, why should any of this even matter to you?

Why belong to the Catholic Church in first place, LittleLes, since you don't beleive in it or agree with it? There's plenty of other churches out there, and you're free to belong to no church at all. Why is this all such a huge deal for you?

Edited July 18, 2005 by Socrates

[LittleLes]

(1)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."


(2) There is no explicit mention of the Assumption in the New Testament.

(3) This from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

"The belief in the corporeal assumption of Mary is founded on the apocryphal treatise De Obitu S. Dominae, bearing the name of St. John, which belongs however to the fourth or fifth century. It is also found in the book De Transitu Virginis, falsely ascribed to St. Melito of Sardis, and in a spurious letter attributed to St. Denis the Areopagite. If we consult genuine writings in the East, it is mentioned in the sermons of St. Andrew of Crete, St. John Damascene, St. Modestus of Jerusalem and others. In the West, St. Gregory of Tours (De gloria mart., I, iv) mentions it first. The sermons of St. Jerome and St. Augustine for this feast, however, are spurious. St. John of Damascus (P. G., I, 96) thus formulates the tradition of the Church of Jerusalem: "

St Andrew of Crete 660-740
St John Damascene 676-754
St Modestus of Jerusalem c 631
St. Gregory of Tours 538-594

So the first mention of the Assumption is in a "apocryphal " treatise belonging to the fourth of fifth century and other false writings. It is first founfd in the writings of the Fathers menioned above and the dates.

So there is no mention in scripture and the story doesn't start till the fourth or fifth century as a pious legend.

Hardly the deposit of faith. It's therefore a "new" doctrine.

LittleLes

[Socrates]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 17 2005, 07:52 PM'](1)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."
(2) There is no explicit mention of the Assumption in the New Testament.

(3) This from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

"The belief in the corporeal assumption of Mary is founded on the apocryphal treatise De Obitu S. Dominae, bearing the name of St. John, which belongs however to the fourth or fifth century. It is also found in the book De Transitu Virginis, falsely ascribed to St. Melito of Sardis, and in a spurious letter attributed to St. Denis the Areopagite. If we consult genuine writings in the East, it is mentioned in the sermons of St. Andrew of Crete, St. John Damascene, St. Modestus of Jerusalem and others. In the West, St. Gregory of Tours (De gloria mart., I, iv) mentions it first. The sermons of St. Jerome and St. Augustine for this feast, however, are spurious. St. John of Damascus (P. G., I, 96) thus formulates the tradition of the Church of Jerusalem: "

St Andrew of Crete 660-740
St John Damascene 676-754
St Modestus of Jerusalem c 631
St. Gregory of Tours 538-594

So the first mention of the Assumption is in a "apocryphal " treatise belonging to the fourth of fifth century and other false writings. It is first founfd in the writings of the Fathers menioned above and the dates.

So there is no mention in scripture and the story doesn't start till the fourth or fifth century as a pious legend.

Hardly the deposit of faith. It's  therefore a "new" doctrine.

LittleLes
[right][snapback]646814[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

You've again proven absolutely nothing here. Catholics are not "Sola Scriptura." Mary's Assumption was part of the oral tradition of the Church. For details on this, go to [url="http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0105sbs.asp"]this article.[/url].

I will quote the end of the above-cited article in answer to your false assertion that this doctrine is founded entirely on apocryphal documents.
The Church fathers made reference to this belief much earlier:

[quote]The Church Fathers provide a much more balanced approach. Epiphanius said in A.D. 377, "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, haer. 78, nn. 10-11,23: G.C.S., 37, 461-462; 474).

Neither Jerome, Origen, Athanasius, Ambrose, nor Augustine contested Epiphanius in what he had written regarding Mary's miraculous passing, and Ephraem (d. 373) described Mary as having been glorified by Christ and carried through the air to heaven (Cf. Ephraem, De nativitate domini sermo 12, sermo 11, sermo 4; Opera omni syriace at latine, Vol. 2, 415). Throughout history, there have been very few opponents in the Church of Mary's Assumption. No one seemed ready to claim that she corrupted. In fact, the first opposition to the Assumption cannot be found until Ambrosius Autpertus of the eighth century.

From this faith of the Church, Christians began to celebrate the feast of Mary's unique passing. Like the fruit from a tree, the liturgy is the result of doctrine, not the source of it. By the end of the fourth century, the feast of the Dormitio or Koimesis, which celebrated Mary's death, resurrection, and Assumption, was celebrated throughout the East. A feast celebrating Mary's entrance to heaven, "The Memory of Mary," also began around the fourth century. The significance of these early feasts cannot be overlooked, as they are testimony to the truths that the Church knew to be true. Christians would not initiate feasts throughout the Church that were ideas on the fringes of Catholic thought.

One reason why it is difficult to assess where Mary's last days were is because she left no remains. The early Church prized the relics of early Christians, as can be seen by reading The Martyrdom of Polycarp. However, no one claimed to have Mary's remains, which would have been prized above all others. There is no historical reference to the relics of Mary, the corruption of Mary, or the place where her body lies. A skeptic who denies Christ's Resurrection should be asked to find evidence of the remains of Christ, and the same challenge can be extended to whoever denies Mary's Assumption.[/quote]

When this doctrine was formally defined, it was hardly "inventing" a new dogma, but merely confirming as true, an ancient tradition which is in no was contradictory to the deposit of faith.

[Socrates]

Does anyone else find LittleLes' logical flip-flops amusing? Sometimes he comes on like a Sola-Scriptura Biblical Fundamentalist ("Where's it say that in the Bible?"), then rejects the truth of the Bible whenever it is used against him.

His only point of consistency is that according to him, the Church is always wrong. (an odd view for a self-proclaimed "Catholic," don't you think?)

[Cam42]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Jul 17 2005, 09:13 PM']Does anyone else find LittleLes' logical flip-flops amusing?  Sometimes he comes on like a Sola-Scriptura Biblical Fundamentalist  ("Where's it say that in the Bible?"), then rejects the truth of the Bible whenever it is used against him.

His only point of consistency is that according to him, the Church is always wrong.  (an odd view for a self-proclaimed "Catholic," don't you think?)
[right][snapback]646837[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

While one can't help but laugh, it is quite frustrating.....the intellectual dishonesty, the lack of scholarship, the games, the utter stupidity, these things are not funny. It is quite sad that he thinks that he is effecting anyone or affecting a change in the beliefs of those here at phatmass.



















Kilroy, we already debated Pastor Aeternus. Can we shut this thread down now? Papal infallibility has been beaten to death....

[LittleLes]

Socrates wrote:

"You've again proven absolutely nothing here. Catholics are not "Sola Scriptura." Mary's Assumption was part of the oral tradition of the Church."

RESPONSE:

No. The "tradition" or legend of Mary's assumption began in the fourth or fifth century as admitted by the Catholic Encyclopedia. No scripture or writing of the Early Church Fathers claims such. Thus there is no evidence that it existed earlier.

Socrates then quotes the late fourth century writing of Epiphanius:

A.D. 377, "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, haer. 78, nn. 10-11,23: G.C.S., 37, 461-462; 474)."

RESPONSE: Scrates doesn't realize what this actually admits.

Here Epiphanius is admitting that there is NOTHING IN SCRIPTURE about the Assumption and HE KNOWS NOTHING ABOUT IT.

Socrates then goes on to say:

"From this faith of the Church, Christians began to celebrate the feast of Mary's unique passing.

RESPONSE: Admitted by the Catholic Encyclopedia:

"According to the life of St. Theodosius (d. 529) it was celebrated in Palestine before the year 500, probably in August (Baeumer, Brevier, 185). "

Thus near the start of the sixth century the Assumption began to be celebrated. NOTE: Not earlier becasue the legend hadn't developed until the late fourth or fifth century, as is also described in the Catholic Encyclopedia.

Socrates ends with this amusing evidence:

"However, no one claimed to have Mary's remains, which would have been prized above all others. There is no historical reference to the relics of Mary, the corruption of Mary, or the place where her body lies. A skeptic who denies Christ's Resurrection should be asked to find evidence of the remains of Christ, and the same challenge can be extended to whoever denies Mary's Assumption."

Following this logic, since we don't know where St Joseph is buried, is that proof that he had an "assumption" too? I think not.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Jul 18 2005, 06:23 AM']While one can't help but laugh, it is quite frustrating.....the intellectual dishonesty, the lack of scholarship, the games, the utter stupidity, these things are not funny.  It is quite sad that he thinks that he is effecting anyone or affecting a change in the beliefs of those here at phatmass.
Kilroy, we already debated Pastor Aeternus.  Can we shut this thread down now?  Papal infallibility has been beaten to death....
[right][snapback]647716[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


RESPONSE:

Yes, I can see why you want this thread shut down. When there is no creditable rebuttal, that's what apologists do

And you overlooked the facts of history and the documentary evidence that he insists upon .

[Cam42]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 18 2005, 07:34 AM']RESPONSE:

Yes, I can see why you want this thread shut down. When there is no creditable rebuttal, that's what apologists do

And you overlooked the facts of history and the documentary evidence that he insists upon . 
[right][snapback]647722[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

whatever.....we have been over all this before.....trolling a dead topic is not worth the effort. I am done.

[Paladin D]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Jul 17 2005, 09:13 PM']His only point of consistency is that according to him, the Church is always wrong.  (an odd view for a self-proclaimed "Catholic," don't you think?)
[right][snapback]646837[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


I have a strong feeling he's a Protestant who's pretending he's Catholic, an attempt to give him more credibility; that or some messed up agnostic who is confused on what he believes himself.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Jul 18 2005, 08:38 AM']whatever.....we have been over all this before.....trolling a dead topic is not worth the effort.  I am done.
[right][snapback]647756[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

Yes. Rather than admit that one has not and cannot validly refute the documentation presented, it is always wise to retire from the field.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Paladin D' date='Jul 18 2005, 09:04 AM']I have a strong feeling he's a Protestant who's pretending he's Catholic, an attempt to give him more credibility; that or some messed up agnostic who is confused on what he believes himself.
[right][snapback]647773[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

Any evidence to present, or just an ad homimen when the facts prove the error of your position?

[LittleLes]

Thank you once again , Socrates, for suppling the quotations from the late fourth century writing of Epiphanius:

A.D. 377, "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, haer. 78, nn. 10-11,23: G.C.S., 37, 461-462; 474).

The Catholic Encyclopedia summarizes as follows:

"Epiphanius (d. 403) acknowledged that he knew nothing definite about it (Haer., lxxix, 11)."

" The sermons of St. Jerome and St. Augustine for this feast, however, are spurious."

In short, the Assumption is not mentioned in scripture and Epiphanius, writing about the beginning of the fourth century, claims he know nothing about. So much for it being included in the "deposit of faith."

After this, the legend appears, first as spurions writing about the fourth or fifth century. More spurious writings of St. Augustine and St. Jerome are added. A feast day was then established during the following century, and 1900 years later it becomes an infallible doctrine via an ex cathedra papal statement.

A fact of history or a pious legend that became infallible?

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Jul 17 2005, 07:38 PM']Thus far, for all your ramblings, you haven't given a single fact which proves Papal Infallibility wrong.

And furthermore, since you reject the Church's teaching authority, why should any of this even matter to you?

[/quote]

RESPONSE:

The existence of papal infallibility is not mine to disprove since it has not been proven to exist in the first place. It is an assertion made without evidence. Any religion or belief group can make such a claim.

Put simply, the hierarchial Church asserts that it is infallible. As proof it then claims that what it says is infallible, and because it is infallible everybody should believe this assertion.

See any circular reasoning here?

I reject error whatever the source.

[Quietfire]

LittleLes,
The burden of proof is not on the Church, but on you. Since YOU claim the Church is wrong.
Everytime you ask for proof it is given, then you dismiss it.
Yet when you provide information, your 'proof' is incorrect and/or adjusted to fit to your accusations.
Therefore, you have given no proof.
Again, it is up to you to provide burden of proof and up until now, all you have provided is your personal opinion with cut and paste excerpts taken [i]out of context[/i] to fit your personal opinions as well as incorrect information concerning the topic.
You also claim that these threads of yours shouldnt be shut down due to the hits they receive (people reading them). In all honesty, I only click on these threads again and again to see if youve come to your senses yet or what others are saying that prove your statements wrong again and again.
Yes, I know you are going to either accuse me of an ad homimen attack or that you are going to demand that I show proof where you have been shown wrong etc.
I think you enjoy this attention, really. Even though it is negative attention and you consistenty cry wolf, it is attention none the less. I went to school with enough kids to see this pattern, and you fit the bill exactly. You would rather disrupt the class and get punished (and thus turning the attention on you), than sit in your chair and not be noticed by everyone.

I only check on these threads because I enjoy seeing your heresy being smacked down again and again.

Pax.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Quietfire' date='Jul 18 2005, 10:35 AM']
LittleLes,
The burden of proof is not on the Church, but on you. Since YOU claim the Church is wrong.


RESPONSE:

No. Not at all. If the Church claimed St Peter had a halo and lived in Brooklyn, the burden of the proof would not be on me to prove he didn't.

The burden of proof is always on the person or group making the original positive assertion. Not on the responder to prove a negative.

However, long-suffering person that I am, give me a day or so and I'll outline the problems with the Church's claim of papal infallibility. I'll try to organize them by group.

LittleLes