Reformation

[dairygirl4u2c]

So infallibility was defniitely defined in the 1800s. Catholics would of course contend it was always implicitly believed.
We have the Schism in 1000ish, where there was apparently enough ambiguity for a legit split, enough that they can remained split. Beween then and the 1800s we have the Reformation in 1500ish. Which brings me to my question, if anyone is knowledgable. People assume that the Protestants broke from a Church that definitively was infallible. I wonder how much truth there is to that if a significant minority at Vatican I in the 1800s did not believe for infallibility. Wht's to say the Reformation was just breaking away from a strong political and spriitual/religious unifying power, that wasn't necessarily infallible in any real sense? It puts th reformation in a different light, if I am onto something legit here.

[thessalonian]

Of course you can put a spin on it and if you want to believe that spin you will. Your not coming up with anything new here. Historical revisionism is a way of life for those who don't want to come to grips with Catholicism.

Strong sprititual unifying power. Hmmmm. Breaking away from a strong spiritual unifying power. You said it not me. Yes, your on to something.

[dairygirl4u2c]

The theory would help make sense the idea that someone would defy a church everyone knew to be true, and that people would follow,as it'd make more sense they defied a church that was moreso just very pervasive and not definitely true.

[Anomaly]

Good point, dairy, but I think you over-reach the conclusion of the Protestant Schism.

The East/West Schism was caused by a political power answer provided for a thelogical question. The East felt they were forced to acceed to the West's version because the West was more interested in the political power then properly answering the question. The Schism occurred without the Full Magesterium deciding the issue of the Filoque because the political goal was more pressing.

The Roman Catholics still acknowledge the Apostolic Succession of the Eastern bishops (patriarchs) as still being valid. This makes all subsequent new defined Doctrine suspect. The West was now in a position to extend the power of the Pope to Infallibility to justify them forcing an answer that caused the East to split. Roman Catholics say the Pope doesn't speak infallibility unless it agrees with Previous Tradition. How is that accomplished if the Church is splinterd and does not listen to the complete Magesterium? This is not saying both Church's can maintain the Tradtions they have, but both are unable to Define any new Developed Doctrine. Things must stay as they were prior to the Schism. This definitely puts into question both Papal Infallibiltiy and Marion Doctrines.

But as far as the Protestant Schsim, their dissent is much more broad since they are dissenting against Traditions the Church had before the East West schism. They dissent against most Sacraments which both East and West agree on. They dissent against the Real Presence, which both East and West agree on. They dissent against the the Full Scripture that both East and West agree on.

I don't think the Schism invalidates both the East and West Churches which makes the Protestent dissent justifiable. I think the Schism invalidates the ability of either Church from developing new Doctrine. Both Churches can hold and pass on their Historical Tradition, but are prevented from properly discerning new developed Doctrine until they re-unite. Christ's Church is divided, not destroyed, but crippled because of it's disunity. The fruit of it's crippled state is made evident in further schism of dissenters, gradual loss of belief in principle Truths, etc. The Roman Catholic priest scandal is rooted in the Schism because RC's have endowed it's Clergy with too much autonomy. That is why they have a hard time controlling or disciplining it's Bishops and have the endless fights about when the Pope is or isn't speaking "infallibly".

[Paladin]

When the Church defines doctrine, she is only codifying what has been in place for a long time. In Vatican I, Mary didn't suddenly become immaculately conceived, the Church was just writing down what a majority of the faithful had believed for the past 1800 or so years.

Same thing with papal infallibility. Nicholas of Cusa tackled the question way back in the 15th century, well before the doctrine was defined. He argued both for and against what he assumed to already be the well-known belief. Aquinas discussed it two hundred years prior to him. In the fourth century, Pope Julius I challenged: "...Do you not know that it is the custom to write to us first, and that here what is just is decided?" The faithful going all the way back to Irenaeus - the man who learned from Polycarp, who learned from St. John the Apostle, who learned at the very feet of Christ - give lists of the succession of Church leaders right back to Peter.

My point: the codification of doctrine isn't the invention of it, it's the official recognition of what has already been true in Christ's Church through the ages.

Edited March 14, 2007 by Paladin

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1213656' date='Mar 14 2007, 04:40 PM']The Roman Catholic priest scandal is rooted in the Schism because RC's have endowed it's Clergy with too much autonomy. That is why they have a hard time controlling or disciplining it's Bishops and have the endless fights about when the Pope is or isn't speaking "infallibly".[/quote]

It's worth noting that the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches have reunited in full communion twice since the Great Schism. Both unions were short lived, but they happened regardless. Also, there were Orthodox and Protestant representatives present at Vatican II and past councils, so it wouldn't be fair to say that Catholic bishops are shutting out the voices of other Christians.

The priest scandal has a lot more to do with the change in our culture during the 40s, 50s, and 60s. The Catholic Church continued in his pre-Industrial Revolution culture, where people chose their vocation in life around 13 or 14 years of age, long past the Industrial Revolution. A Catholic boy growing in up in the 50s and 60s really had no right to be going to a minor seminary after the 8th grade, but that was common until a couple decades ago. I imagine that is one of the major factors that contributed to the scandal. I won't claim to have the full answer on it because it's a complicated situation, but in my own discernment for the priesthood, it's one thing I've noticed.

Lastly, are there endless fights on when the pope is speaking infallibly? I think we're all pretty well agreed that there have only been two infallible statements (the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary) since the doctrine was defined, although plenty of infallible doctrine was defined before then.

[thessalonian]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1213645' date='Mar 14 2007, 03:28 PM']The theory would help make sense the idea that someone would defy a church everyone knew to be true, and that people would follow,as it'd make more sense they defied a church that was moreso just very pervasive and not definitely true.[/quote]

Gee, maybe Arius had it right or Pelagius, or Joseph Smith, or Muhamed. I am sure we can come up with logical theories as to why they might have had it right. Such theories allow us to be "blown about by every wind of doctrine".

Ya might want to read up a bit on some of the people who divided the Church. Luther had quite a personal ego and a wicked mouth for instance. Hardly an example of someone who had the truth. People defy truth for all kinds of reasons. Pride is usually the root of that and Luther had his share of it, claiming to be wiser than 1500 years of the Church. He who thinks he is wise shall be made a fool.

[dairygirl4u2c]

Interesting. Thanks Paladin. That's what I was looking for... the guy from the fifteenth century. I'll look into that but it sound like it was at least seriously considered at that point.

I don't think you can necessarily construe that quote from way earlier on to be necessarily what you're implying though.

[Resurrexi]

[quote][b]Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by L. Ott:[/b]
With Christ and the Apostles General Revelation concluded. (Sent. certa.)[/quote]