Announcement

Collapse

Ecclesiology 201 Guidelines

Discussion on matters of general mainstream Christian churches. What are the differences between Catholics and protestants? How has the charismatic movement affected the church? Are Southern baptists different from fundamentalist baptists? It is also for discussions about the nature of the church.

This forum is primarily for Christians to discuss matters of Christian doctrine, and is not the area for debate between atheists (or those opposing orthodox Christianity) and theists. Inquiring atheists (or sincere seekers/doubters/unorthodox) seeking only Christian participation and having demonstrated a manner that does not seek to undermine the orthodox Christian faith of others are also welcome, but must seek Moderator permission first. When defining “Christian” for purposes of this section, we mean persons holding to the core essentials of the historic Christian faith such as the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment. Persons not holding to these core doctrines are welcome to participate in the Comparative Religions section without restriction, in Theology 201 as regards to the nature of God and salvation with limited restrictions, and in Christology for issues surrounding the person of Christ and the Trinity. Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions. Additionally, there may be some topics that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream orthodox doctrine that may be more appropriately placed within Comparative Religions 101.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Ex Cathedra Papal Statement and the Bible.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Ex Cathedra Papal Statement and the Bible.

    I decided not to derail the other thread, so I'm posting this here.

    Originally posted by Spartacus View Post
    Both of those categories (clear Scriptural teaching and infallibly defined Papal teaching) are fairly narrow, so you have a small data set in the first place. That makes finding a contradiction theoretically easy but practically very difficult. If there were a contradiction, then you could present this as a factual dilemma rather than a theoretical one.
    Source: Pope Eugene IV

    Yet it does not deny that after the passion of Christ up to the promulgation of the Gospel they could have been observed until they were believed to be in no way necessary for salvation; but after the promulgation of the Gospel it asserts that they cannot be observed without the loss of eternal salvation. All, therefore, who after that time observe circumcision and the Sabbath and the other requirements of the law, it declares alien to the Christian faith and not in the least fit to participate in eternal salvation, unless someday they recover from these errors. Therefore, it commands all who glory in the name of Christian, at whatever time, before or after baptism, to cease entirely from circumcision, since, whether or not one places hope in it, it cannot be observed at all without the loss of eternal salvation.

    © Copyright Original Source



    Source.

    That is something that was said ex cathedra, right? Unless "promulgation of the Gospel" is being defined oddly here, then there is a contradiction between Pope Eugene IV and the Bible.

    Galatians 5:6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.

    Galatians 6:15 Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is the new creation.

    Paul even circumcised Timothy.

    Acts 16:1 Paul came to Derbe and then to Lystra, where a disciple named Timothy lived, whose mother was Jewish and a believer but whose father was a Greek. 2 The believers at Lystra and Iconium spoke well of him. 3 Paul wanted to take him along on the journey, so he circumcised him because of the Jews who lived in that area, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.

    How could the Gospel have not been promulgated before Paul converted?

    promulgate
    [prom-uh l-geyt, proh-muhl-geyt]
    Spell Syllables
    Synonyms Examples Word Origin
    verb (used with object), promulgated, promulgating.
    1.
    to make known by open declaration; publish; proclaim formally or put into operation (a law, decree of a court, etc.).
    2.
    to set forth or teach publicly (a creed, doctrine, etc.).

    All of those things happened before Paul came on the scene. Like Sparko asked hypothetically, I ask for real. Which wins, the Bible, or the Pope?

  • #2
    Here it is in full.

    Originally posted by Cantate Domino by Pope Eugene IV
    "The Holy Roman Church] firmly believes, professes and teaches that the legal prescriptions of the Old Testament or the Mosaic law, which are divided into ceremonies, holy sacrifices and sacraments, because they were instituted to signify something in the future, although they were adequate for the divine cult of that age, once our Lord Jesus Christ who was signified by them had come, came to an end and the sacraments of the new Testament had their beginning. Whoever, after the Passion, places his hope in the legal prescriptions and submits himself to them as necessary for salvation and as if faith in Christ without them could not save, sins mortally. It does not deny that from Christ's passion until the promulgation of the Gospel they could have been retained, provided they were in no way believed to be necessary for salvation. But it asserts that after the promulgation of the gospel they cannot be observed without loss of eternal salvation. Therefore it denounces all who after that time observe circumcision, the [Jewish] sabbath and other legal prescriptions as strangers to the faith of Christ and unable to share in eternal salvation, unless they recoil at some time from these errors. Therefore it strictly orders all who glory in the name of Christian, not to practise circumcision either before or after baptism, since whether or not they place their hope in it, it cannot possibly be observed without loss of eternal salvation."
    So he says that those who fall into the error of the judaizers sins mortally and therefore risk eternal damnation, which was something he was strongly concerned about at that time.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
      Here it is in full.



      So he says that those who fall into the error of the judaizers sins mortally and therefore risk eternal damnation, which was something he was strongly concerned about at that time.
      I did link to it you know.

      He still says "Therefore it strictly orders all who glory in the name of Christian, not to practise circumcision either before or after baptism, since whether or not they place hope in it, it cannot possibly be observed without loss of eternal salvation". So, either you are right, and he meant the way you say, and he contradicted himself, or he didn't, and he contradicted the Bible. Seems like a lose-lose situation for Papal infallibility to me.

      Comment


      • #4
        Can you demonstrate that Cantate Domino is an infallible Papal pronouncement?
        Don't call it a comeback. It's a riposte.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Spartacus View Post
          Can you demonstrate that Cantate Domino is an infallible Papal pronouncement?
          What criteria is used to determine if a papal bull is an infallible Papal pronouncement or not?

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
            I did link to it you know.
            The Cantate Domino is a papal bull teaching on something for which there was an ecumenical council at the time, namely the council of Florence. I wanted to show you the topic, which was kinda left it, as you seemed to be zooming in on something and I wasn't sure whether you thought the pope had contradicted himself, or whether he had contradicted the Bible.

            There's no contradiction between the teaching that I layed out and the Bible, not unless you're ready to say that Christians have to get circumsized, or that its good for Christians to be circumsized for religious reasons and that you can find support for that in the Bible. The Council of Florence however was dealt more specifically on the question on how our works can have merit, with one of the dogmas being that without the Blood of Christ all we do is in vain, and even the good of our actions come about from His sacrifice.

            He still says "Therefore it strictly orders all who glory in the name of Christian, not to practise circumcision either before or after baptism, since whether or not they place hope in it, it cannot possibly be observed without loss of eternal salvation". So, either you are right, and he meant the way you say, and he contradicted himself, or he didn't, and he contradicted the Bible. Seems like a lose-lose situation for Papal infallibility to me.
            In that case its simple, this is not an instance of Papal infallibility. There's really only been five cases (I think) where a pope has spoken ex cathedra. In this case its clear that he hasn't, simple because he's made no definitions. There have been far more cases of ecumenical councils producing dogmatic statement with the seal of infallibility.

            As Spartacus said earlier in another thread, the dataset of clear biblical teachings, and instances of papal infallibility are both limited data-sets.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Sparko View Post
              What criteria is used to determine if a papal bull is an infallible Papal pronouncement or not?
              There's not a set of criteria as such, but it must be clear that the pope is exercising his office as pope to bind the consciences of Catholics on an issue of Faith and Morals. The Church isn't in doubt about when that's happened.

              I'm not convinced there's any errors in what he said though.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                There's not a set of criteria as such, but it must be clear that the pope is exercising his office as pope to bind the consciences of Catholics on an issue of Faith and Morals. The Church isn't in doubt about when that's happened.

                I'm not convinced there's any errors in what he said though.
                sounds like there is a lot of wiggle room to say something is not infallible if it is ever proven fallible later.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Spartacus View Post
                  Can you demonstrate that Cantate Domino is an infallible Papal pronouncement?
                  I was asking if it is. How would I go about "proving" that it's supposed to be? It's speaking on faith and morals, it appears to be an "ex cathedra" statement. It was put out during the Ecumenical Council of Florence. Can you give a reason why it doesn't count as infallible, other than the fact that it contradicts the Bible that is?

                  I stumbled on this while looking for information about "ex cathedra". I saw how it very clearly does contradict the Bible(well, unless you define words differently), and thought I should ask about it here.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                    The Cantate Domino is a papal bull teaching on something for which there was an ecumenical council at the time, namely the council of Florence. I wanted to show you the topic, which was kinda left it, as you seemed to be zooming in on something and I wasn't sure whether you thought the pope had contradicted himself, or whether he had contradicted the Bible.
                    I was reading through the whole thing. It wasn't until I got to the paragraphs that I quoted that I noticed anything wrong.

                    There's no contradiction between the teaching that I layed out and the Bible, not unless you're ready to say that Christians have to get circumsized, or that its good for Christians to be circumsized for religious reasons and that you can find support for that in the Bible. The Council of Florence however was dealt more specifically on the question on how our works can have merit, with one of the dogmas being that without the Blood of Christ all we do is in vain, and even the good of our actions come about from His sacrifice.
                    He just said that those who are circumcised regardless of whether or not they place their faith in that or not lose their salvation. That's clearly against the teaching in the Bible that neither circumcision nor uncircumcision are an advantage.

                    In that case its simple, this is not an instance of Papal infallibility. There's really only been five cases (I think) where a pope has spoken ex cathedra. In this case its clear that he hasn't, simple because he's made no definitions. There have been far more cases of ecumenical councils producing dogmatic statement with the seal of infallibility.

                    As Spartacus said earlier in another thread, the dataset of clear biblical teachings, and instances of papal infallibility are both limited data-sets.
                    What do "definitions" have to do with anything, and how are you "defining" them? I mean, he certainly seems to be defining the Trinity, and defining the difference between moral and certain Mosaic laws. How are you defining "ex cathedra"? How is a council on such an important issue, and the resulting Papal Bull not "official"? This seems like a case of having your cake and eating it too.

                    I don't see what the size of the data pool has to do with anything. A single error is enough to prove papal infallibility wrong.

                    I started this thread because it certainly seems like this Papal Bull has an error, and it certainly seems like it would fall under papal infallibility. Either one or both of those is wrong, or papal infallibility is false. The error is there. That's why I have to ask about the "infallible" aspect. I don't yet see any reason why it shouldn't be considered such, other than the error I pointed out.

                    There may be a storm coming, so I might have to get off soon.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                      sounds like there is a lot of wiggle room to say something is not infallible if it is ever proven fallible later.
                      Yes, of course. Welcome to theology. The wiggle room also concerns statements that have not been nor could be proven false. In addition to those who simply reject it (myself included), there are Catholic theologians who are referred to as maximalist or minimalist with respect to the quesiton of papal infallibility. Some might only identify a single doctrine as ever taught infallibly by a pope and some would even affirm the doctrine as theoretically true but claim that it has never actually been exercised. One of my college professors referred to papal infallibility as the fading smile of the Cheshire Cat from Alice in Wonderland. It is a mythological claim for those who require or desire a foundation for certainty that is contrasting, comparable, and complentary to sola scriptura of the Protestants.
                      βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                      ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                      אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                        What criteria is used to determine if a papal bull is an infallible Papal pronouncement or not?
                        I'm not sure of all the criteria, but everyone agrees that the pope must invoke his authority and make it clear that his teaching binds on all Catholics.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
                          He just said that those who are circumcised regardless of whether or not they place their faith in that or not lose their salvation. That's clearly against the teaching in the Bible that neither circumcision nor uncircumcision are an advantage.
                          You're certainly not applying much interpretive grace to what he says.

                          Do you know what judaizing is? And yes I do believe as a Catholic that without just reason, its a sin to circumcize. There are no just reason anymore, hence its a sin.

                          The biblical quote you gave does not establish that its morally permissible for gentiles to circumcize, just between a baptized jew and a baptized gentile there is no difference. And so one does not become a greater Christian by becoming a jewish Christian.

                          What do "definitions" have to do with anything, and how are you "defining" them?
                          First of all what he lays out is true at that point. But what he's writing is commentary, and the charism of infallibility does not extend to that.

                          To know what teachings or moral laws must be held to be true by all catholics, the specific teaching has to be layed out clearly. It must also be stated that no Catholic may be in opposition to this teaching.

                          I don't think pope Eugene IV had to do this though. No one disagrees that there is no theological merit in circumcision after Christ gave us the sacrament of Baptism.

                          And therefore there's no good reason to imktate the jews ritual.

                          The weird practice in America is a different matter. You're free to zoom in one sentence of his, but you'd be ignoring the context of judaizing.

                          When American men today get circumsized is that to imitate the jews? Whether or not they believe this to be good?

                          How are you defining "ex cathedra"?
                          The pope speaking ex cathedra, is just the pope speaking on behalf of all Catholics, from his chair (hence ex cathedra, parallel to seat of Moses in the Bible), defining a matter on faith or morals, the former being confined to tradition (either biblical or oral), to be binding on the concience of all Catholics, and for anyone denying it to be anathema.

                          As said its only been done 5 times in history.

                          The latest two was on the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary.

                          The clost to Pope Eugene IV was an affirmation that the Just who die enter immediately into the beatific vision.

                          How is a council on such an important issue, and the resulting Papal Bull not "official"?
                          A Papal Bull is basically just some declaration from the pope, given on the state if things. Its not the end goal of a council. And it is official, but as made clear here, not infallible.

                          Though I still say what he says is true and is in no way in conflict with the bible.

                          This seems like a case of having your cake and eating it too.
                          Oh come off it.

                          I don't see what the size of the data pool has to do with anything. A single error is enough to prove papal infallibility wrong.
                          I wasn't disagreeing with that. However you seem to think that the pope makes far more infallible statements than he does..

                          There may be a storm coming, so I might have to get off soon.
                          Nothing like a little hit and run criticism eh? Seriously though if you're feeling unwell don't continue. I'll defend my faith, but I want you to be happy as well.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                            sounds like there is a lot of wiggle room to say something is not infallible if it is ever proven fallible later.
                            Whats wiggle room about it? Has anyone ever considered this an ex cathedra statement? No?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                              snip

                              Nothing like a little hit and run criticism eh? Seriously though if you're feeling unwell don't continue. I'll defend my faith, but I want you to be happy as well.
                              I've decided that I don't feel like this conversation is worth continuing. I think I may have been unknowingly harsher than intended. I felt I did need to respond to that last bit though.

                              I potentially have to get off my computer because of a coming thunderstorm, and you call that "hit and run criticism"?

                              This wasn't about "feeling unwell", although storms do take a toll.

                              The next day, or maybe two have thunderstorm chances. I really don't want my computer, or anything else we have, to get busted by a lightning strike. So, depending on the weather, my responses might be a bit more sparse than usual. This applies to all activity regarding computers. I've already had two days where I had to spend several hours with everything turned off.

                              ETA: I now realize that this post might have seemed like hit and run criticism. I did not intend that. I'm thinking at this point I'm saying things that come out wrong. I don't want that. I should probably wait to post seriously until I can be more sure what I'm saying is clear, and what I really intend.
                              Last edited by Cerebrum123; 04-09-2015, 08:31 AM.

                              Comment

                              widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                              Working...
                              X