Ex Cathedra Papal Statement and the Bible.

[robrecht]

Yes, both Hans Kung and Pope Francis, like others in recent history, are open to discussion on the issues here, but I believe this is a naive over statement of the potential of change in the Roman Church. Like other issues that plague the Roman Church the discussions are superficial and in reality will not likely lead to change.

There was nothing naive about my statement. I have no illusions about the progress of change in hierarchical structures in general or, more specifically, in the Roman Catholic papacy, curia, and episcopacy. And yet the church continues to evolve in both positive and negative ways over the centuries, like every other human institution.

[shunyadragon]

Neither has Pope Francis:

http://ncronline.org/news/theology/f...libility-dogma

Yes, both Hans Kung and Pope Francis, like others in recent history, are open to discussion on the issues here, but I believe this is a naive over statement of the potential of change in the Roman Church. Like other issues that plague the Roman Church the discussions are superficial and in reality will not likely lead to change.

[robrecht]

Hans King has not given up on this discussion:

http://ncronline.org/news/theology/i...s-pope-francis

Neither has Pope Francis:

http://ncronline.org/news/theology/f...libility-dogma

[robrecht]

Hans King has not given up on this discussion:

http://ncronline.org/news/theology/i...s-pope-francis

[Catholicity]

The decision limited papal authority as well in making any political decisions. More or less the papacy was now effectively relegated only to the church instead of being a political authority. In modern eyes it looks awful but going back to Europe in 1870 it probably made a lot of political sense to the authorities of other countries. They could now decide on their own what to do. However it doesn't mean it was right. It just denotes a shift in European idea of whose in charge over what.

[One Bad Pig]

Before 1870, people disagreed: that's why the Council felt the need to precisely define what exactly Papal authority was. There were those who thought he should exercising political authority (deposing princes and the like) as part of his authority as pope.

In 1870, people vehemently disagreed as well. There were accusations of the dogma being ramrodded through while not all members of the opposition were present, IIRC. It seems the West has no mechanism for dealing with another Latrocinium.

[Leonhard]

So basically the idea that the Pope can be infallible was decided by fallible men for personal reasons.

That statement carries no more strength than questioning the infallibility of the Bible's authority, because it was written by fallible men for personal reasons. The question is whether the Holy Spirit intervened in this process, to ensure that there be no error of doctrine. That's a question ultimately about whether there is such a thing as Apostolic Succession. If there is then when the bishops exercise their full authority, and teach dogmatically, it must be infallible, if not then the Church is neither Catholic nor Eastern Orthodox.

[robrecht]

So basically the idea that the Pope can be infallible was decided by fallible men for personal reasons.

As is always the case, in all matters, both within and outside of the church.

[Spartacus]

So basically the idea that the Pope can be infallible was decided by fallible men for personal reasons.

What robrecht said is that it was first argued by Franciscans who didn't want the Franciscan way of life (and therefore witness to the Gospel) toned down and diluted. It wasn't decided by them, and their definition of infallibility is definitely not the version approved in 1870.

[Sparko]

There were earlier efforts to make claims upon the idea of papal infallibility and irreformability by early Franciscans who objected to later popes granting dispensations and privileges to more lax Franciscans. The more rigorist Franciscans claimed that later popes could not change the ruling of Pope Innocent III when he originally approved the rule of St Francis. Ultimately, the idea is traced back to interpretations of Mt 16; there are, of course, disputed interpretations of how Peter's role and that of his successors should be understood.

So basically the idea that the Pope can be infallible was decided by fallible men for personal reasons.

[robrecht]

Probably from some pope several centuries ago.

The push for a strong papacy actually came from Catholics in post-revolutionary countries who wanted a counter-balance to the aggressive secular regimes with which they were confronted.

There were earlier efforts to make claims upon the idea of papal infallibility and irreformability by early Franciscans who objected to later popes granting dispensations and privileges to more lax Franciscans. The more rigorist Franciscans claimed that later popes could not change the ruling of Pope Innocent III when he originally approved the rule of St Francis. So, in this case, it was not a pope making this claim; rather it was a third party that actually wanted to limit the power of a current pope in favor of a previous ruling by a deceased pope. Ultimately, the idea is traced back to interpretations of Mt 16; there are, of course, disputed interpretations of how Peter's role and that of his successors should be understood.

[Spartacus]

So before 1870, popes were not considered to be infallible?

Or are you saying that before 1870, Popes were considered infallible in all things but after 1870 only in questions of faith and morals?

Before 1870, people disagreed: that's why the Council felt the need to precisely define what exactly Papal authority was. There were those who thought he should exercising political authority (deposing princes and the like) as part of his authority as pope.

[Sparko]

It was defined by the First Vatican Council in 1870 in the document Pastor Aeternus. As for the reasoning behind it, that bit of history is still the subject of some controversy. There were those who wanted Papal authority defined much more broadly than it was, but, in the end, defining Papal authority as properly limited to questions of faith and morals puts definitive constraints on the authority of the Pope, who prior to the nationalist revolutions of the 19th century had exercised some degree of immediate political authority, and one camp wanted the Council to assert that the Papal authority naturally included political matters. The Council ultimately disappointed this camp.

So before 1870, popes were not considered to be infallible?

Or are you saying that before 1870, Popes were considered infallible in all things but after 1870 only in questions of faith and morals?

[Spartacus]

Probably from some pope several centuries ago.

The push for a strong papacy actually came from Catholics in post-revolutionary countries who wanted a counter-balance to the aggressive secular regimes with which they were confronted.

[Spartacus]

Where does the idea that the Pope can be infallible in certain circumstances come from anyway?

It was defined by the First Vatican Council in 1870 in the document Pastor Aeternus. As for the reasoning behind it, that bit of history is still the subject of some controversy. There were those who wanted Papal authority defined much more broadly than it was, but, in the end, defining Papal authority as properly limited to questions of faith and morals puts definitive constraints on the authority of the Pope, who prior to the nationalist revolutions of the 19th century had exercised some degree of immediate political authority, and one camp wanted the Council to assert that the Papal authority naturally included political matters. The Council ultimately disappointed this camp.