Charlie raised the point of the silliness of the doctrine of papal infallability, given that it was never officially recognized until 1870 and was later reversed. As he asked, so does that mean that the popes prior to 1870 were infallibly accepting their fallibility? And how can you make up such a doctrine after such a long period of time?
And if Peter was the first pope, was he acting infallibly when he cut off the ear of the Roman soldier, or denied Jesus three times, or had a wife contrary to Paul's teachings (which the Church actually bases its teachings upon), or when a letter attributed to him says slaves should even accept bad behaviour from their masters?
I didn't listen to this podcast but your concept of papal infallability is clearly not in line with the RCC dogma. It's not a general infallability as you appear to assume. But clearing the matter up is beside the point since the majority of Roman Catholics have always generally not accepted the doctrine in any form. So, in summation, yes, it is a "silly doctrine" as you say; but you have a false idea of what the dogma is. It has not been "reversed" since 1870. The majority, though, have never accepted it to begin with though; so there's really no use in discussing it further.
Yes, you're right, and thanks for clarifying for others. It only refers to theological issues. I was mentioning those cases in the context of infallibility in the general sense in the form of a question to illustrate the questionable actions of the supposed first pope.
Thanks for correcting me on the issue of the doctrine of papal infallibility not being reversed since 1870, as I was under the assumption, based on what I had heard before, that it was nullified with the Second Vatican Council, given how many other things were changed, but it appears that they still upheld it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility "The dogmatic constitution Lumen gentium of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, which was also a document on the Church itself, explicitly reaffirmed the definition of papal infallibility, so as to avoid any doubts, expressing this in the following words:"
4 comments:
Charlie raised the point of the silliness of the doctrine of papal infallability, given that it was never officially recognized until 1870 and was later reversed. As he asked, so does that mean that the popes prior to 1870 were infallibly accepting their fallibility? And how can you make up such a doctrine after such a long period of time?
And if Peter was the first pope, was he acting infallibly when he cut off the ear of the Roman soldier, or denied Jesus three times, or had a wife contrary to Paul's teachings (which the Church actually bases its teachings upon), or when a letter attributed to him says slaves should even accept bad behaviour from their masters?
I didn't listen to this podcast but your concept of papal infallability is clearly not in line with the RCC dogma. It's not a general infallability as you appear to assume. But clearing the matter up is beside the point since the majority of Roman Catholics have always generally not accepted the doctrine in any form. So, in summation, yes, it is a "silly doctrine" as you say; but you have a false idea of what the dogma is. It has not been "reversed" since 1870. The majority, though, have never accepted it to begin with though; so there's really no use in discussing it further.
Yes, you're right, and thanks for clarifying for others. It only refers to theological issues. I was mentioning those cases in the context of infallibility in the general sense in the form of a question to illustrate the questionable actions of the supposed first pope.
Thanks for correcting me on the issue of the doctrine of papal infallibility not being reversed since 1870, as I was under the assumption, based on what I had heard before, that it was nullified with the Second Vatican Council, given how many other things were changed, but it appears that they still upheld it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility
"The dogmatic constitution Lumen gentium of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, which was also a document on the Church itself, explicitly reaffirmed the definition of papal infallibility, so as to avoid any doubts, expressing this in the following words:"
Post a Comment