dcnovice
Posts: 37282
Joined: 8/2/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: LadyEllen
Whats always puzzled me about the Catholic church (and its descendants) is that it proposes that the head of the church is in direct apostolic succession, whence he derives authority and infallibility. What this means, should the succession, authority and infallibility be valid, is that decisions made by previous heads of the church were valid and right; crusades, inquisitions et al, and the persecution and vilification of Jewry. There is no need to apologise for any of it, and any such apology demonstrates that previous decisions were in error and that the notion of infallibility is therefore equally erroneous.
In addition, the head of the church and all the bishops etc are guided by the holy spirit, which is specifically requested to guide them from the moment they are appointed to their positions. What this means is, that every decision they make is guided by God, and given that this God is unchanging in nature, those decisions must remain valid at all times, forever. Where apologies are made for prior decisions then, the church makes a mockery of the holy spirit and thus God, by going against the original guidance given. Either that, or the holy spirit is non existent or ineffective - both blasphemies too, or the holy spirit is found not willing to guide the church, thus breaching any notion of apostolic succession and any authority and infallibility arising from that succession.
Can anyone clarify all this for me please, and explain why anyone should listen to a word that comes from the Catholic church or any of its descendants (Church of England, for instance)?
E
Lady E ---
Drawing on my (too) many years of Catholic schooling, I can say that the idea of infallibility is widely misunderstood. It refers only to when the pope or a council of pope and bishops make solemn pronouncements on matters of faith and morals. It's been invoked very rarely in church history, general by councils. Popes acting alone have invoke infallibility only twice. Pius IX defined the dogma of the Immaculate Conception (that Mary was born without original sin), and Pius XII defined the dogma of the Assumption (that Mary was assumed body and soul into heaven after her death).
For a papal statement to be infallible, it must meet four criteria:
(a) It must be a matter of faith or morals.
(b) The pope must be speaking ex cathedra, that is from the chair of Peter, and not simply preaching or issuing a statement.
(c) The pope must intend to define some point of dogma in a final and binding way.
(d) The pope must make this intention clear.
Again, all this applies only to major doctrinal statements. Anything else--a homily, a warning to politicians, an encyclical, a church rule about eating meat on Fridays, a change in the liturgy, a decision to repaint the Sistine Chapel--is a human statement and potentially fallible. One hopes, though, that such statements are rooted in wisdom.
Not sure if this helps, but it makes me feel I learned something in high school.
_____________________________
No matter how cynical you become,
it's never enough to keep up.
JANE WAGNER, THE SEARCH FOR SIGNS OF
INTELLIGENT LIFE IN THE UNIVERSE
|
RE: Pope warns Catholic politicians who back abortion - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread