True2Ourselves
Already a member? login
Divider
Divider
Divider
Divider
Divider
Divider
Divider
Divider
Divider
Divider
Divider
Divider
  
+
Register FAQ A-Z directory Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

True2Ourselves Forums   > Community Topics > Theology  > Why did Vatican I need to declare anything?

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 06-03-2011, 10:14 PM
Linsinbigler's Avatar
Representative Clergy
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 5,150
Default Why did Vatican I need to declare anything?

Why did Vatican I need to declare that the pope was infallible?

I ask this question because I got the following response to one of my posts on another forum:

"Father, one thing I have never had answered by any of our RC friends was why it took a council to make the pope of Rome infallible. Why couldn't he infallibly declare himself to be so? To me, it seems akin to Christ having His Apostles declare Him to be divine instead of Him telling us Himself. There is also that controversy of the 19th century Irish catechism which claimed papal infallibility was a Protestant myth"

In the case of Christ, God the Father and Christ Himself and the Holy Spirit declared the incarnate Christ as Lord. The Apostles were bound to follow it. But in the case of Vatican I, coming 1800+ years later, a council, supposedly subordinate to the pope, declared his infallibility as binding. The tail is wagging the dog by the Vatican's own doctrine?
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
  #2  
Old 06-03-2011, 10:52 PM
Loretohouse's Avatar
Knight of the Forum
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 534
Default Re: Why did Vatican I need to declare anything?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Linsinbigler View Post
Why did Vatican I need to declare that the pope was infallible?

I ask this question because I got the following response to one of my posts on another forum:

"Father, one thing I have never had answered by any of our RC friends was why it took a council to make the pope of Rome infallible. Why couldn't he infallibly declare himself to be so? To me, it seems akin to Christ having His Apostles declare Him to be divine instead of Him telling us Himself. There is also that controversy of the 19th century Irish catechism which claimed papal infallibility was a Protestant myth"

In the case of Christ, God the Father and Christ Himself and the Holy Spirit declared the incarnate Christ as Lord. The Apostles were bound to follow it. But in the case of Vatican I, coming 1800+ years later, a council, supposedly subordinate to the pope, declared his infallibility as binding. The tail is wagging the dog by the Vatican's own doctrine?
There is a common misconception about Papal infallibility. No Pope can make a proclamation that is contrary to the doctrine of faith and claim he has authority to do so. People who oppose our faith will claim that every word coming from the mouth of the Holy Father must be accepted as infallible. That would be a distortion of the truth.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
  #3  
Old 06-04-2011, 08:39 AM
Suspended for Review
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 6,856
Default Re: Why did Vatican I need to declare anything?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Linsinbigler View Post
Why did Vatican I need to declare that the pope was infallible?

I ask this question because I got the following response to one of my posts on another forum:

"Father, one thing I have never had answered by any of our RC friends was why it took a council to make the pope of Rome infallible. Why couldn't he infallibly declare himself to be so? To me, it seems akin to Christ having His Apostles declare Him to be divine instead of Him telling us Himself. There is also that controversy of the 19th century Irish catechism which claimed papal infallibility was a Protestant myth"

In the case of Christ, God the Father and Christ Himself and the Holy Spirit declared the incarnate Christ as Lord. The Apostles were bound to follow it. But in the case of Vatican I, coming 1800+ years later, a council, supposedly subordinate to the pope, declared his infallibility as binding. The tail is wagging the dog by the Vatican's own doctrine?
Perhaps the Pope was too humble to claim it himself.

Strength in numbers giving strength in conviction giving absolute direction of doctrine to follow?
Has survived pretty well with an abundance of followers.

Does it show confidence in a leader for subordinates to speak in such praise?

If the Pope is a direct link to the Holy Spirit and the head of the church then by the Holy Spirit he would/should be infallible.

Is the Pope bound to Christ like the Apostles?
Are/were the Apostles infallible?
Is it claimed anywhere that the Apostles are infallible?

I do know the Holy Spirit is infallible but can a human be infallible interpreting the Holy Spirit in all matters all the time?

I don't know, even less on history, just thought I would put those thoughts out there.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
  #4  
Old 06-04-2011, 10:48 AM
Linsinbigler's Avatar
Representative Clergy
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 5,150
Default Re: Why did Vatican I need to declare anything?

Quote:
Originally Posted by CinderAsh View Post
Perhaps the Pope was too humble to claim it himself.

Strength in numbers giving strength in conviction giving absolute direction of doctrine to follow?
Has survived pretty well with an abundance of followers.

Does it show confidence in a leader for subordinates to speak in such praise?

If the Pope is a direct link to the Holy Spirit and the head of the church then by the Holy Spirit he would/should be infallible.

Is the Pope bound to Christ like the Apostles?
Are/were the Apostles infallible?
Is it claimed anywhere that the Apostles are infallible?

I do know the Holy Spirit is infallible but can a human be infallible interpreting the Holy Spirit in all matters all the time?

I don't know, even less on history, just thought I would put those thoughts out there.
Well, it is not in all matters all the time. Papal Infallibility applies to the Bishop of Rome speaking ex cathedra. But that is the debate on the other thread. Has he made 2 ex cathedra pronouncements, or 60, or 18, or 4? It seems to be an important detail as an ex cathedra statement is infallibly binding upon all Roman Catholics. Regarding this thread, however, if it was true from the beginning that the Pope of Rome had the ability to make infallible pronouncements ex cathedra, why was such a pronouncement delayed until 1800 years after the fact, and why was it made in a council rather than ex cathedra? Was the council necessary to have made it binding?
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
  #5  
Old 06-05-2011, 04:58 AM
Suspended for Review
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 6,856
Default Re: Why did Vatican I need to declare anything?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Linsinbigler View Post
Well, it is not in all matters all the time. Papal Infallibility applies to the Bishop of Rome speaking ex cathedra. But that is the debate on the other thread. Has he made 2 ex cathedra pronouncements, or 60, or 18, or 4? It seems to be an important detail as an ex cathedra statement is infallibly binding upon all Roman Catholics. Regarding this thread, however, if it was true from the beginning that the Pope of Rome had the ability to make infallible pronouncements ex cathedra, why was such a pronouncement delayed until 1800 years after the fact, and why was it made in a council rather than ex cathedra? Was the council necessary to have made it binding?
There are many scenarios that could explain this including the workings of the Holy Spirit for reasons known to God.
There could be less than holy scenarios as well.

Restructuring of the Church from and for growth could be a valid reason.

Change of power or direction by sect.

Political or financial reasons.

Public persuasion. If a council representing greater geographic boundaries called together more believers into the fold by the means of public comment, that would assist growth.
The Pope draws an amazing following. A devout Catholic steps up to hear what the holy representative has to say and what better way to edify than by subordinates who represent each fold.
The Apostles did edify Jesus.

I trust God has things in control.
The Holy Spirit is the thread that ties all together regardless of reason.

Again just putting thoughts out there.
I suspect you have thoughts on the reasons which no doubt will be interesting to hear.
By saying" supposedly subordinate to the pope", are you suggesting the council may have more power than the Pope?

Last edited by CinderAsh : 06-05-2011 at 05:19 AM.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
  #6  
Old 06-07-2011, 10:15 AM
Suspended for Review
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 214
Default Re: Why did Vatican I need to declare anything?

Have the popes been infallible ? To the contrary, these have been instigators of immoral, vicious, and violent acts.

(1) The New Catholic Encyclopedia revealed that “astrology was used by Pope Julius*II [1503-13] to set the day of his coronation and by Paul*III [1534-49] to determine the proper hour for every Consistory.” Yet, Deuteronomy 18:10-12 says: "There should not be found in you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, anyone who employs divination, a practicer of magic or anyone who looks for omens or a sorcerer, or one who binds others with a spell or anyone who consults a spirit medium or a professional foreteller of events or anyone who inquires of the dead. For everybody doing these things is something detestable to Jehovah, and on account of these detestable things Jehovah your God is driving them away from before you."

(2) Driven by political power and misguided religious conviction, the Roman Catholic Church reached for the sword to stamp out opposition. Hunting down heretics became its business. History professors Miroslav Hroch and Anna Skýbová of Karls University in Prague, Czechoslovakia, described how the Inquisition, the special tribunal designed to deal with heresies that came into existence in 1231 C.E., operated: “Contrary to general practice, the names of informers .*.*. did not have to be revealed.” Pope Innocent*IV issued the bull “Ad extirpanda” in 1252, which allowed torture. “Being burned at the stake, the usual method employed to put heretics to death by the 13th century, .*.*. had its symbolism, implying that by administering this kind of punishment, the church was not guilty of shedding blood.”

(3) Regarding Pope Innocent*III of the early 13th*century, Peter De Rosa, himself a "patriotic Catholic" and former Jesuit, states: “It has been reckoned that in the last and most savage persecution under [Roman] Emperor Diocletian [third century] about two thousand Christians perished, worldwide. In the first vicious incident of Pope Innocent’s Crusade [against “heretics” in France] ten times that number of people were slaughtered. .*.*. It comes as a shock to discover that, at a stroke, a pope killed far more Christians than Diocletian. .*.*. [Innocent] had no qualms about using Christ’s name to do everything Christ objected to.”(Vicars of Christ—The Dark Side of the Papacy, 1988)

De Rosa also notes that “in the pope’s name, [the inquisitors] were responsible for the most savage and sustained onslaught on human decency in the history of the race.” Of Dominican inquisitor Torquemada in Spain, he says: “Appointed in 1483, he ruled tyrannically for fifteen years. His victims numbered over 114,000 of whom 10,220 were burned.”

(4) On July*20, 1933, the Vatican’s interest in the rising power of Nazism was displayed when Cardinal Pacelli (who later became Pope Pius*XII, 1939-58) signed a concordat in Rome between the Vatican and Nazi Germany. Von Papen signed the document as Hitler’s representative, and Pacelli there conferred on von Papen the high papal decoration of the Grand Cross of the Order of Pius. In his book Satan in Top Hat, Tibor Koeves writes of this, stating: “The Concordat was a great victory for Hitler. It gave him the first moral support he had received from the outer world, and this from the most exalted source.” The concordat required the Vatican to withdraw its support from Germany’s Catholic Center Party, thus sanctioning Hitler’s one-party “total state.” Further, its article 14 stated: “The appointments for archbishops, bishops, and the like will be issued only after the governor, installed by the Reich, has duly ascertained that no doubts exist with respect to general political considerations.” By the end of 1933 (proclaimed a “Holy Year” by Pope Pius*XI), Vatican support had become a major factor in Hitler’s push for world domination.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
  #7  
Old 06-07-2011, 11:28 AM
Loretohouse's Avatar
Knight of the Forum
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 534
Default Re: Why did Vatican I need to declare anything?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jaareshiah View Post
Have the popes been infallible ? To the contrary, these have been instigators of immoral, vicious, and violent acts.

(1) The New Catholic Encyclopedia revealed that “astrology was used by Pope Julius*II [1503-13] to set the day of his coronation and by Paul*III [1534-49] to determine the proper hour for every Consistory.” Yet, Deuteronomy 18:10-12 says: "There should not be found in you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, anyone who employs divination, a practicer of magic or anyone who looks for omens or a sorcerer, or one who binds others with a spell or anyone who consults a spirit medium or a professional foreteller of events or anyone who inquires of the dead. For everybody doing these things is something detestable to Jehovah, and on account of these detestable things Jehovah your God is driving them away from before you."

(2) Driven by political power and misguided religious conviction, the Roman Catholic Church reached for the sword to stamp out opposition. Hunting down heretics became its business. History professors Miroslav Hroch and Anna Skýbová of Karls University in Prague, Czechoslovakia, described how the Inquisition, the special tribunal designed to deal with heresies that came into existence in 1231 C.E., operated: “Contrary to general practice, the names of informers .*.*. did not have to be revealed.” Pope Innocent*IV issued the bull “Ad extirpanda” in 1252, which allowed torture. “Being burned at the stake, the usual method employed to put heretics to death by the 13th century, .*.*. had its symbolism, implying that by administering this kind of punishment, the church was not guilty of shedding blood.”

(3) Regarding Pope Innocent*III of the early 13th*century, Peter De Rosa, himself a "patriotic Catholic" and former Jesuit, states: “It has been reckoned that in the last and most savage persecution under [Roman] Emperor Diocletian [third century] about two thousand Christians perished, worldwide. In the first vicious incident of Pope Innocent’s Crusade [against “heretics” in France] ten times that number of people were slaughtered. .*.*. It comes as a shock to discover that, at a stroke, a pope killed far more Christians than Diocletian. .*.*. [Innocent] had no qualms about using Christ’s name to do everything Christ objected to.”(Vicars of Christ—The Dark Side of the Papacy, 1988)

De Rosa also notes that “in the pope’s name, [the inquisitors] were responsible for the most savage and sustained onslaught on human decency in the history of the race.” Of Dominican inquisitor Torquemada in Spain, he says: “Appointed in 1483, he ruled tyrannically for fifteen years. His victims numbered over 114,000 of whom 10,220 were burned.”

(4) On July*20, 1933, the Vatican’s interest in the rising power of Nazism was displayed when Cardinal Pacelli (who later became Pope Pius*XII, 1939-58) signed a concordat in Rome between the Vatican and Nazi Germany. Von Papen signed the document as Hitler’s representative, and Pacelli there conferred on von Papen the high papal decoration of the Grand Cross of the Order of Pius. In his book Satan in Top Hat, Tibor Koeves writes of this, stating: “The Concordat was a great victory for Hitler. It gave him the first moral support he had received from the outer world, and this from the most exalted source.” The concordat required the Vatican to withdraw its support from Germany’s Catholic Center Party, thus sanctioning Hitler’s one-party “total state.” Further, its article 14 stated: “The appointments for archbishops, bishops, and the like will be issued only after the governor, installed by the Reich, has duly ascertained that no doubts exist with respect to general political considerations.” By the end of 1933 (proclaimed a “Holy Year” by Pope Pius*XI), Vatican support had become a major factor in Hitler’s push for world domination.
Hogwash! Your source is as reliable as a Chick tract.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
  #8  
Old 06-07-2011, 05:31 PM
Selene's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,084
Default Re: Why did Vatican I need to declare anything?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Linsinbigler View Post
Why did Vatican I need to declare that the pope was infallible?

I ask this question because I got the following response to one of my posts on another forum:

"Father, one thing I have never had answered by any of our RC friends was why it took a council to make the pope of Rome infallible. Why couldn't he infallibly declare himself to be so? To me, it seems akin to Christ having His Apostles declare Him to be divine instead of Him telling us Himself. There is also that controversy of the 19th century Irish catechism which claimed papal infallibility was a Protestant myth"

In the case of Christ, God the Father and Christ Himself and the Holy Spirit declared the incarnate Christ as Lord. The Apostles were bound to follow it. But in the case of Vatican I, coming 1800+ years later, a council, supposedly subordinate to the pope, declared his infallibility as binding. The tail is wagging the dog by the Vatican's own doctrine?
Doctrines are defined formally only when there is a controversy that needs to be cleared up or when the magisterium (the Church in its office as teacher; cf. Matt. 28:18–20; 1 Tim. 3:15, 4:11) thinks the faithful can be helped by particular emphasis being drawn to some already-existing belief

When Vatican I such proclamation, they were not introducing a new doctrine. When the Church makes an infallible pronouncement, we are not to suppose that a new doctrine is being introduced. For instance, when the Holy Father in 1854 defined the Blessed Virgin's Immaculate Conception as an article of faith, the infallible definition was not a proclamation of a new doctrine, but was merely an announcement of an article of faith true from the very beginning, and publicly defined only in order to make the dogma clear to all and to be believed as part of the deposit of faith left to the Church. In the case of the Immaculate Conception, it did not come about because there were widespread doubts about the doctrine. In fact, the Vatican was deluged with requests from people desiring the doctrine to be officially proclaimed. Pope Pius IX, who was highly devoted to the Blessed Virgin, hoped the definition would inspire others in their devotion to her. When the proclamation of the Immaculate Conception was made, there were no protests by the Catholic faithful because what was declared was already widely accepted and acknowledged. It was not a new doctrine.

Another example is the definition of the Holy Father's infallibility, made in 1870 by the Vatican Council. The dogma was true from the very beginning, and had been universally held. But because many objections were being made against it due to the Protestant Reformation, the Bishops in the Vatican Council thought it best, in order to make clear the stand of the Church, to make an infallible definition.

Thus, an infallible pronouncement—whether made by the pope alone or by an ecumenical council—usually is made only when some doctrine has been called into question or when the Magisterium thinks the faithful can be helped by particular emphasis being drawn to some already-existing belief. Most doctrines have never been doubted by the large majority of Catholics. The infallibility of the pope is not a doctrine that suddenly appeared in Church teaching; rather, it is a doctrine which was implicit in the early Church.

Christ instructed the Church to preach everything he taught (Matt. 28:19–20) and promised the protection of the Holy Spirit to "guide you into all the truth" (John 16:13). That mandate and that promise guarantee the Church will never fall away from his teachings (Matt. 16:18, 1 Tim. 3:15), even if individual Catholics might.

As Christians began to more clearly understand the teaching authority of the Church and of the primacy of the pope, they developed a clearer understanding of the pope’s infallibility. This development of the faithful’s understanding has its clear beginnings in the early Church. For example, Cyprian of Carthage, writing about 256, put the question this way, "Would the heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" (Letters 59 [55], 14). In the fifth century, Augustine succinctly captured the ancient attitude when he remarked, "Rome has spoken; the case is concluded" (Sermons 131, 10).

Last edited by Selene : 06-07-2011 at 05:44 PM.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
  #9  
Old 06-07-2011, 07:55 PM
Giuliano
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Why did Vatican I need to declare anything?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jaareshiah View Post
(1) The New Catholic Encyclopedia revealed that “astrology was used by Pope Julius*II [1503-13] to set the day of his coronation and by Paul*III [1534-49] to determine the proper hour for every Consistory.” Yet, Deuteronomy 18:10-12 says: "There should not be found in you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, anyone who employs divination, a practicer of magic or anyone who looks for omens or a sorcerer, or one who binds others with a spell or anyone who consults a spirit medium or a professional foreteller of events or anyone who inquires of the dead. For everybody doing these things is something detestable to Jehovah, and on account of these detestable things Jehovah your God is driving them away from before you."
You are confused here about what divination is and what Pope Julius II did. I know about this act of his and have seen a copy of the astrological chart myself. I can't locate the source at the moment.

He was not consulting astrology to predict the future. That would be divination. He was seeking advice about the times. When would be a good time to commence construction? Whoever wrote this erred, not knowing the Scripture and not knowing what divination was.

Genesis 1:14 And God said , Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

Yes, astrology can be used sinfully trying to divine the future; but that's what not Pope Julius II did.

You're also off topic, but I thought this should be set straight.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
  #10  
Old 06-07-2011, 07:58 PM
Giuliano
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Why did Vatican I need to declare anything?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jaareshiah View Post
(1) The New Catholic Encyclopedia revealed that “astrology was used by Pope Julius*II [1503-13] to set the day of his coronation and by Paul*III [1534-49] to determine the proper hour for every Consistory.” Yet, Deuteronomy 18:10-12 says: "There should not be found in you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, anyone who employs divination, a practicer of magic or anyone who looks for omens or a sorcerer, or one who binds others with a spell or anyone who consults a spirit medium or a professional foreteller of events or anyone who inquires of the dead. For everybody doing these things is something detestable to Jehovah, and on account of these detestable things Jehovah your God is driving them away from before you."
You are confused here about what divination is and what Pope Julius II did. I know about this act of his and have seen a copy of the astrological chart myself. I can't locate the source at the moment.

He was not consulting astrology to predict the future. That would be divination. He was seeking advice about the times. When would be a good time to commence construction? Whoever wrote this erred, not knowing the Scripture and not knowing what divination was.

Genesis 1:14 And God said , Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

Yes, astrology can be used sinfully trying to divine the future; but that's what not Pope Julius II did.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Closed Thread


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Vatican:World ignores Christians in Middle East peacebwithu Christianity & Politics 0 07-22-2010 12:35 PM
Vatican begins Youtube presence CatholicCrusader General Discussions 1 02-01-2010 07:49 PM
Vatican welcomes Anglicans Brad General Discussions 151 11-15-2009 05:26 AM
The Vatican Secret Archives just a click away CatholicCrusader General Discussions 0 08-26-2009 05:55 AM
I Declare A Love War!!! walkinthespirit General Discussions 24 03-25-2009 10:07 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:47 AM.


true2ourselves
 
 
 

Flashcoms

You need to upgrade your Flash Player.

Version 8 or higher is required.

download from http://www.adobe.com/go/getflashplayer

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29