Is the church infallible in Protestant theology?

[BillMcEnaney]

The Council of Trent was a denominational council and not an ecumenical council and its authority was limited only to the Roman Catholic Church. None of the Eastern Orthodox nor any of the Protestant churches have ever viewed it as being authoritative over them. Likewise the first and second Vatican Councils were merely Roman Catholic in their nature. The Catholic Church officially recognizes itself alone as being the ONE AND ONLY TRUE CHURCH.

You're using the word "ecumenical" in the Protestant sense, not in its original one. Originally the word meant " for the household," and only Catholics were allowed to attend ecumenical councils.

Catholics believe that in the strictest sense of the word "Church," the Catholic Church is the only Church, since it's God's kingdom on earth. So "assembly" is the theological word to signify a denomination. Catholics believe Christ founded only the Catholic Church. Before the Eastern schism in 1054, the Eastern Orthodox were Catholics.

 

[BillMcEnaney]

Not even close yet, but I do commend you for making the effort. The fact remains that it is impossible to cite any use by any Pope prior to 1870 of an "ex cathedra" statement. I am a bit surprised that you have not trotted out the two-edged sword of Papal Bulls. Although the probably come closer to "ex cathedra" statements, your Church does not recognize them as such for many solid reasons.

No. I haven't shown you an ex cathedra statement from before 1870. But if the Bible implies papal infallibility, who needs an example of an ex cathedra statement after Our Lord's day and before 1870?

Thank you for your kind words.

 

[bbbbbbb]

You're using the word "ecumenical" in the Protestant sense, not in its original one. Originally the word meant " for the household," and only Catholics were allowed to attend ecumenical councils.

Catholics believe that in the strictest sense of the word "Church," the Catholic Church is the only Church, since it's God's kingdom on earth. So "assembly" is the theological word to signify a denomination. Catholics believe Christ founded only the Catholic Church. Before the Eastern schism in 1054, the Eastern Orthodox were Catholics.

A standard dictionary definition -
Ec·u·men·i·cal
/ˌekyəˈmenək(ə)l/

adjective

• 1.representing a number of different Christian Churches:"he was a member of ecumenical committees

You also might find this helpful - Ecumenical council - Wikipedia

 

[bbbbbbb]

No. I haven't shown you an ex cathedra statement from before 1870. But if the Bible implies papal infallibility, who needs an example of an ex cathedra statement after Our Lord's day and before 1870?

Thank you for your kind words.

The Bible has been taken to imply many things ranging from papal infallibility to genocide to polygamy. I am much less concerned with any implicit ideas extracted from the Bible than I am with the explicit teachings of the Bible. When I master loving my neighbor as myself I will turn my attention to these other issues.

 

[BillMcEnaney]

The Bible has been taken to imply many things ranging from papal infallibility to genocide to polygamy. I am much less concerned with any implicit ideas extracted from the Bible than I am with the explicit teachings of the Bible. When I master loving my neighbor as myself I will turn my attention to these other issues.

God knows I need Our Lord to help me love my neighbor more than ever, since I'm not good at it. Christian love isn't an emotion. We chose to love the Christian way. For a Catholic, that willing the highest good for my neighbor and being willing to do all I can to help him get. That good is heaven. We can love our enemies because Christian love isn't a feeling.

There are people I dislike, But I'm still willing to help them however I can. I won't express my dislike for them, since I'd hate to hurt them. Sometimes I react negatively to others when I don't mean to do that. Other times I even learn to like the people I disliked. Either way, they don't deserve my rude, obnoxious abuse.

Neither does anyone here at the forum. When I get too emotional, I might write something potentially offensive. So I hope I haven't written typed anything like that here. I'm against religiously indifferent ecumenism Popes Francis, Benedict XVI, and John Paul II do, It's as thought they believe that human dignity and libertarian freedom trump salvation.

So I think it's sinful to even hint that anyone has a God-given right to practice any religion he prefers. The idea is absurd when you think about, say, a supposedly God-given right to practice Hinduism. After all, God wouldn't give anyone a right to break the first commandment.

 

[BillMcEnaney]

Getting back to papal infallibility, here's an article showing that St. Francis de Sales supported or anticipated it in the 16th century.

A short History of Papal Infallibility

 

[BillMcEnaney]

A standard dictionary definition -
Ec·u·men·i·cal
/ˌekyəˈmenək(ə)l/
View attachment 325995
adjective

• 1.representing a number of different Christian Churches:"he was a member of ecumenical committees

You also might find this helpful - Ecumenical council - Wikipedia

Thank you, my friend. I'm familiar with the newer sense of the word and found YouTube video where a doctor of canon law used the word in the sense I have in mind. But since the video might offend some people here, I won't post it.


Religious indifferentism is the heresy that everyone has a God-given right to practice any religion human reason tells him to practice. In my opinion, Protestantism and today's ecumenism may imply that heresy. That's because Lutheranism, Presbyterianism, Pentecostalism, Seventh-day Adventism, and so forth seem to be different religions under the "Christian umbrella." When someone doesn't care for what his pastor teaches, he'll join another one or another denomination. He means to find the truth. But the church or denomination he joins depends largely on what he likes.

Think of all the interdenominational disagreement, a "tower of babble" full of mutually inconsistent beliefs. We say we're bible-believing Christians. But to believe what the Bible teaches, we must first interpret Scripture it accurately, or we'll believe something we only think it teaches. That's partly why I study extrabiblical documents from the early Church. Who's more likely to know what the Bible means, someone from the early Church or me when I judge privately?

I'm a cradle Catholic who spent years attending Protestant services and Protestant Bible studies. After a Protestant acquaintance gave me a booklet criticizing, I mean caricaturing Catholic doctrine, So I drove to a college library where I found convincing replies in a theology manual for priests, my favorite Catholic book.

I'm happy to talk with non-Catholics about their religious beliefs. But I won't try to force anyone to become. Still, like Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, I want everyone to be Catholic, and Catholicism is the only religion I can recommend with a clear conscience. That's because my research convinced me that it's the only religion anyone has a God-given right to practice.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Thank you, my friend. I'm familiar with the newer sense of the word and found YouTube video where a doctor of canon law used the word in the sense I have in mind. But since the video might offend some people here, I won't post it.


Religious indifferentism is the heresy that everyone has a God-given right to practice any religion human reason tells him to practice. In my opinion, Protestantism and today's ecumenism may imply that heresy. That's because Lutheranism, Presbyterianism, Pentecostalism, Seventh-day Adventism, and so forth seem to be different religions under the "Christian umbrella." When someone doesn't care for what his pastor teaches, he'll join another one or another denomination. He means to find the truth. But the church or denomination he joins depends largely on what he likes.

Think of all the interdenominational disagreement, a "tower of babble" full of mutually inconsistent beliefs. We say we're bible-believing Christians. But to believe what the Bible teaches, we must first interpret Scripture it accurately, or we'll believe something we only think it teaches. That's partly why I study extrabiblical documents from the early Church. Who's more likely to know what the Bible means, someone from the early Church or me when I judge privately?

I'm a cradle Catholic who spent years attending Protestant services and Protestant Bible studies. After a Protestant acquaintance gave me a booklet criticizing, I mean caricaturing Catholic doctrine, So I drove to a college library where I found convincing replies in a theology manual for priests, my favorite Catholic book.

I'm happy to talk with non-Catholics about their religious beliefs. But I won't try to force anyone to become. Still, like Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, I want everyone to be Catholic, and Catholicism is the only religion I can recommend with a clear conscience. That's because my research convinced me that it's the only religion anyone has a God-given right to practice.

The essential problem is the definition of "The Church". If one chooses to stick one's head in the sand and believe that their particular branch of Christianity composes "The Church" and no other branches of Christianity are valid then one is in serious error, if not heresy. Catholics are hardly the only denomination to do so. However, even the Catholic Church has reformed (as in re-formed) its position during the twentieth century when it decided to draw in other branches of Christianity into its sheepfold. Thus, Vatican II served as a convenient vehicle for redefining that relationship, among its many other purposes. Out of it came the express belief that all trinitarian baptism is valid and that converts from other branches of Christianity need not be rebaptized. Although it may seem prosaic today, it was almost as huge as shifting the altars from east walls to a more central position in the church buildings. Also, the Catholic church no longer labels Protestants as heretics, but as "separated brethren". That means, at least on the surface, that Protestants have a hope of heaven. That hope is illusory, at best, unless a Protestant is either utterly ignorant or converts to Catholicism. As a result, the Catholic church decided to recognize Protestant denominations as "ecclesial bodies", but not churches, rather than heretical sects.

Thus, as in the Wikipedia article, ecumenism since at least the Council of Trent, has been redefined by the Catholic Church to consist of its members only. All other branches of Christianity are excluded ipso facto because they fail to submit to that chap in Rome. This is hardly the concept employed in the first seven church councils beginning with Jerusalem and which are recognized as valid ecumenical councils by all branches of Christianity including Catholicism. Any branch of Christianity can hold a council, e.g. the World Council of Churches, and declare it to be an ecumencal council and mold the rhetoric to support their definition of "ecumenical" but saying it is so does not actually make it so.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Getting back to papal infallibility, here's an article showing that St. Francis de Sales supported or anticipated it in the 16th century.

A short History of Papal Infallibility

I cannot deny that there were stirrings and development within the Catholic church over the centuries leading up to 1870. A similar development can be traced concerning what became the Four Marian Dogmas proclaimed in 1950. However, the results of these developmental processes bear as much relationship with their origins as rocks bear with refined metals made from them. The simple fact that no other branch of Christianity has come remotely close to the doctrinal evolution of the Catholic Church can be seen as either of vindication of God's on-going revelation through a particular chap in Rome (or chaps, as was the case prior to 1870) or as a disturbing (to use a kind word) indication of human depravity.

 

[BillMcEnaney]

I cannot deny that there were stirrings and development within the Catholic church over the centuries leading up to 1870. A similar development can be traced concerning what became the Four Marian Dogmas proclaimed in 1950. However, the results of these developmental processes bear as much relationship with their origins as rocks bear with refined metals made from them. The simple fact that no other branch of Christianity has come remotely close to the doctrinal evolution of the Catholic Church can be seen as either of vindication of God's on-going revelation through a particular chap in Rome (or chaps, as was the case prior to 1870) or as a disturbing (to use a kind word) indication of human depravity.

Since I belong to the Catholic Traditionalist movement, I practice Latin Rite Catholicism as Catholics always practiced it before Vatican II. Most Latin Rite Catholic traditionalists attend the Traditional Latin Mass instead of Pope Paul VI's new ecumenical one the Church introduced in 1970. We avoid that kind of Mass because we believe it's incompatible with what the Catholic Church has always taught about the nature of the Mass. After all, a committee fabricated the new rite because it thought the traditional one would offend non-Catholics.

Traditionalists also resist Vatican II's other novelties, including religious liberty. Collegiality, and the religiously indifferent ecumenism. You may believe we're acting like disobedient schismatics. But we're striving to preserve what the Church has always done and always taught. Vatican II didn't teach anything infallibly. It refused to define any dogma and to condemn any falsehoods. So nothing in the council's sixteen documents obligates any Catholic to accept the novelties.

The Church's teachings haven't evolved. Instead, progressive theologians have introduced novelties a future pope will abolish, especially the religiously indifferent ecumenism. Progressives like Pope Francis hate the Traditionalist movement because tradtionalists refuse to cooperate with his disastrous agenda. Traditionalist seminaries are bursting at the seams. Many Catholics are abandoning vernacular Masses for the Traditional Latin Mass. My Society of St. Pius X chapel is full of young parishioners, their children, and middle-aged people. Traditional Mass congregations grow and thrive while the vernacular Mass congregations shrink. That's why I say that to progress, you sometimes need to replace the new with the old.

People like Popes John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis acted as though they' they got tapped in the 1960s. They didn't know why young Catholics resist the progressivism. So let me quote Fr. George Rutler to describe those Popes and the novelty-loving Catholics.

The modern age is becoming outmoded, the thing it thought most unlikely. This poses a problem overwhelming to set minds: what happens when the age which was supposed to be the end of all the ages ends itself? The stark reply is, modern man is the least equipped to know. While posturing as the breath of things to come, he was instituting the first civilized denial of the future. Modernity is worse than a rejection of the past; it is a defiant avoidance of that which is next, probably the first school of discourse to cancel tomorrow as a thing as vapid as part of yesterday.

Rutler, Fr. George. Beyond Modernity: Reflections of a Post-Modern Catholic . Ignatius Press. Kindle Edition.

Modernity stood for irreverence and ended bowing before it; it respected no age older than youth and aged doing it. That swirling mixture of energy, pettiness, valor, narrow-mindedness, inventiveness, softness, cruelty, impatience, excitement, boredom, pragmatism, and escapism called modernity is freezing in the face of a fact more petrifying than Medusa. It can be uttered in barely more than a coarse whisper; it dare not be gazed at by more than a wink. It is this: the only modern people left are old people.

Rutler, Fr. George. Beyond Modernity: Reflections of a Post-Modern Catholic . Ignatius Press. Kindle Edition.

Fr. Rutler wrote the book in the 1980s.

Catholic religious events are the only religious ones I attend because I can't go to others with a clear conscience. If I attend them, that will suggest that I believe something I don't believe. So I'm not an ecumenist in the post-Vatican-II sense. I want no part of ecumenism that says in effect, "I'm okay, you're okay. Let's talk about what we can agree on and ignore our disagreements. You practice your religion, I'll practice mine, and we'll cooperate to make the world a better place. No one needs to convert to another religion since convergence has replaced conversion." That's not an example of Christian love. It endangers the salvation of people who practice religions God doesn't want anyone to practice.

Here's St. Robert Bellarmine's 13th-century definition of the Church, the definition I believe. The Church is " "the body of men united together by the profession of the same Christian Faith, and by participation in the same sacraments, under the governance of lawful pastors, most especially of the Roman Pontiff." For me, Christ's Church is identical with the Catholic Church, and only Catholics are members of it.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Since I belong to the Catholic Traditionalist movement, I practice Latin Rite Catholicism as Catholics always practiced it before Vatican II. Most Latin Rite Catholic traditionalists attend the Traditional Latin Mass instead of Pope Paul VI's new ecumenical one the Church introduced in 1970. We avoid that kind of Mass because we believe it's incompatible with what the Catholic Church has always taught about the nature of the Mass. After all, a committee fabricated the new rite because it thought the traditional one would offend non-Catholics.

Traditionalists also resist Vatican II'other novelties, including religious liberty. Collegiality, and the religiously indifferent ecumenism. You may believe we're acting like disobedient schismatics. But we're striving to preserve what the Church has always done and always taught. Vatican II didn't teach anything infallibly. It refused to define any dogma and to condemn any falsehoods. So nothing in the council's sixteen documents obligates any Catholic to accept the novelties.

The Church's teachings haven't evolved. Instead, progressive theologians have introduced novelties a future pope will abolish, especially the religiously indifferent ecumenism. Progressives like Pope Francis hate the Traditionalist movement because tradtionalists refuse to cooperate with his disastrous agenda. Traditionalist seminaries are bursting at the seams. Many Catholics are abandoning vernacular Masses for the Traditional Latin Mass. My Society of St. Pius X chapel is full of young parishioners, their children, and middle-aged people. Traditional Mass congregations grow and thrive while the vernacular Mass congregations shrink. That's why I say that to progress, you sometimes need to replace the new with the old.

People like Popes John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis acted as though they' they got tapped in the 1960s. They didn't know why young Catholics resist the progressivism. So let me quote Fr. George Rutler to describe those Popes and the novelty-loving Catholics.

Fr. Rutler wrote the book in the 1980s.

Catholic religious events are the only religious ones I attend because I can't go to others with a clear conscience. If I attend them, that will suggest that I believe something I don't believe. So I'm not an ecumenist in the post-Vatican-II sense. I want no part of ecumenism that says in effect, "I'm okay, you're okay. Let's talk about what we can agree on and ignore our disagreements. You practice your religion, I'll practice mine, and we'll cooperate to make the world a better place. No one needs to convert to another religion since convergence has replaced conversion." That's not an example of Christian love. It endangers the salvation of people who practice religions God doesn't want anyone to practice.

Here's St. Robert Bellarmine's 13th-century definition of the Church, the definition I believe. The Church is " "the body of men united together by the profession of the same Christian Faith, and by participation in the same sacraments, under the governance of lawful pastors, most especially of the Roman Pontiff." For me, Christ's Church is identical with the Catholic Church, and only Catholics are members of it.

I understand your position and realize that you are hardly alone. As we both know, the Catholic Church is filled with schismatics such as yourself who decide, for a variety of sincere reasons, to resist papal authority, albeit that the authority has not reached the level of an "ex cathedra" statement. Probably the most widespread divergence of the laity from the authority of the Pope is in the area of birth control. Virtually all Catholics, at least in the Western World, practice birth control methods which are forbidden by the Catholic Church. This is evidenced by a birth rate among Catholics which aligns with that of society in general and is sharply lower than traditional Catholic birth rates.

 

[BillMcEnaney]

I understand your position and realize that you are hardly alone. As we both know, the Catholic Church is filled with schismatics such as yourself who decide, for a variety of sincere reasons, to resist papal authority, albeit that the authority has not reached the level of an "ex cathedra" statement. Probably the most widespread divergence of the laity from the authority of the Pope is in the area of birth control. Virtually all Catholics, at least in the Western World, practice birth control methods which are forbidden by the Catholic Church. This is evidenced by a birth rate among Catholics which aligns with that of society in general and is sharply lower than traditional Catholic birth rates.

I don't know for sure. But I suspect many Catholics contracept artificially, support abortion, and even advocate so-called same-sex marriage partly because the Church is less strict than it was before Vatican II. The naive optimist Pope John XXIII called Catholic traditionalist Catholics "prophets of gloom." Paul VI expected Vatican II to reinvigorate the Catholic Church before he said:

By some fissure there has entered into the temple of God the smoke of Satan: there is doubt, uncertainty, problems, unrest. Doubt has entered our consciences, and it has entered through the windows which were meant to have been opened to the light. This state of uncertainty reigns even in the Church. It was hoped that after the Council there would be a day of sunlight in the history of the Church. Instead, there came a day of clouds, of darkness, of groping, of uncertainty. How did this happen? We will confide Our thoughts to you: there has been interference from an adverse power: his name is the devil, that mysterious being to whom frequent allusion is made even in the Epistle of St. Peter. (Paul VI, Insegnamenti, Ed Vaticana, vol. X, 1972, p. 707)

Ferrara, Christopher; Woods Jr., Thomas. The Great Facade: The Regime of Novelty in the Catholic Church from Vatican II to the Francis Revolution (Second Edition) (pp. 358-359). Angelico Press. Kindle Edition.

Here's another startling quotation from Pope Paul VI.

In his audience address of November 26, 1969, only a week later, Pope Paul could not have been more explicit in his intention to depart from the Church’s ancient liturgical tradition: We ask you to turn your minds once more to the liturgical innovation of the new rite of the Mass.... A new rite of the Mass: a change in a venerable tradition that has gone on for centuries. This is something that affects our hereditary religious patrimony, which seemed to enjoy the privilege of being untouchable and settled.... We must prepare for this many-sided inconvenience. It is the kind of upset caused by every novelty that breaks in on our habits.... So what is to be done on this special and historical occasion? First of all, we must prepare ourselves. This novelty is no small thing. We should not let ourselves be surprised by the nature, or even the nuisance, of its exterior forms. As intelligent persons and conscientious faithful we should find out as much as we can about this innovation. Pope Paul’s description of what he had decided to do regarding the traditional Latin liturgy would be impossible to believe if he had not said it publicly and for the historical record: It is here that the greatest newness is going to be noticed, the newness of language. No longer Latin, but the spoken language will be the principal language of the Mass. The introduction of the vernacular will certainly be a great sacrifice for those who know the beauty, the power and the expressive sacrality of Latin. We are parting with the speech of the Christian centuries; we are becoming like profane intruders in the literary preserve of sacred utterance. We will lose a great part of that stupendous and incomparable artistic and spiritual thing, the Gregorian chant. We have reason indeed for regret, reason almost for bewilderment. What can we put in the place of that language of the angels? We are giving up something of priceless worth. But why? What is more precious than these loftiest of our Church’s values?8 Pope Paul’s answer to his own question—“But why?”—is even more astonishing: The answer will seem banal, prosaic. Yet it is a good answer, because it is human, because it is apostolic. Understanding of prayer is worth more than the silken garments in which it is royally dressed. Participation by the people is worth more—particularly participation by modern people, so fond of plain language which is easily understood and converted into everyday speech.

Ferrara, Christopher; Woods Jr., Thomas. The Great Facade: The Regime of Novelty in the Catholic Church from Vatican II to the Francis Revolution (Second Edition) (p. 131). Angelico Press. Kindle Edition.

Please forgive me for being too frank, my friend. I don't mean to offend anyone. But now that you've read the quotations, you know why Vatican II and its novelties pain me deeply. Catholics should preserve and protect what we've inherited from Christ through the Apostles and deliver it unchanged to future generations. Instead, even Popes fell in love with novelty. So Pope Francis and others seem to forget what the First Vatican Council taught:

For, the doctrine of faith which God revealed has not been handed down as a philosophic invention to the human mind to be perfected, but has been entrusted as a divine deposit to the Spouse of Christ, to be faithfully guarded and infallibly interpreted. Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding "Therefore […] let the understanding, the knowledge, and wisdom of individuals as of all, of one man as of the whole Church, grow and progress strongly with the passage of the ages and the centuries; but let it be solely in its own genus, namely in the same dogma, with the same sense and the same understanding.'' [Vincent of Lerins, Commonitorium, 23, 3].

Dei Filius

 

[concretecamper]

Out of it came the express belief that all trinitarian baptism is valid and that converts from other branches of Christianity need not be rebaptized.

This is false. There is more required than a Trinitarian formula to conduct a valid Baptism.

 

[BillMcEnaney]

Please, folks, take what you like and leave the rest. I'm recommending this video to show you the difference between the New Mass and the Traditional one. If you want to, please watch the Mass excerpts beginning at 21:58. I don't expect you to care about the details Prof. McCall describes. I want merely to contrast the rituals.

Is the New Mass Legitimate

In the same video, please watch 32:01-36:00, too.

By the way, the video seems misleading because Dr. McCall mention's Massenet's Meditation from Thais after the video's part of it plays. You'll tat pat while people ride their wheelchairs into the church. Sadly, Thais is a prostitute in the opera by the same name. But the music doesn't suggest sexual immorality when you hear that instrumental music.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Please, folks, take what you like and leave the rest. I'm recommending this video to show you the difference between the New Mass and the Traditional one. If you want to, please watch the Mass excerpts beginning at 21:58. I don't expect you to care about the details Prof. McCall describes. I want merely to contrast the rituals.

Is the New Mass Legitimate

In the same video, please watch 32:01-36:00, too.

By the way, the video seems misleading because Dr. McCall mention's Massenet's Meditation from Thais after the video's part of it plays. You'll tat pat while people ride their wheelchairs into the church. Sadly, Thais is a prostitute in the opera by the same name. But the music doesn't suggest sexual immorality when you hear that instrumental music.

Yes, there are very significant differences between the pre- and post-Vatican two masses, not the least of which is the location of the altar and the position of the priest performing the mass.

Despite the fact that many tradition Christians believe that all traditional (i.e. Classical) music is Christian, it certainly was not. Likewise, not all Contemporary popular music is heathen and secular.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I don't know for sure. But I suspect many Catholics contracept artificially, support abortion, and even advocate so-called same-sex marriage partly because the Church is less strict than it was before Vatican II. The naive optimist Pope John XXIII called Catholic traditionalist Catholics "prophets of gloom." Paul VI expected Vatican II to reinvigorate the Catholic Church before he said:



Here's another startling quotation from Pope Paul VI.


Please forgive me for being too frank, my friend. I don't mean to offend anyone. But now that you've read the quotations, you know why Vatican II and its novelties pain me deeply. Catholics should preserve and protect what we've inherited from Christ through the Apostles and deliver it unchanged to future generations. Instead, even Popes fell in love with novelty. So Pope Francis and others seem to forget what the First Vatican Council taught:



Dei Filius

The difficulty here is that, unlike the EOC, which essentially has frozen its theology and its praxis as it developed by the fifth or sixth century, the RCC has embraced a theology of development. Thus, it has a continuing history of change and evolution. As a clear example, we have been discussing the evolving role of the Pope. In 1870 the Pope consummated his role as one of supreme authority where he could speak infallibly. Thus, all the Papal Bulls of previous centuries, which had various direct and indirect references to infallibility, were relegated to the trash bin of the Vatican and a new, improved form was introduced. This was an earthquake in Catholic theology with one result being the split in the Polish Catholic Church between traditionalists who rejected this modern notion and formed the Polish National Catholic church and progressivists who went with the flow from Rome.

Today, Catholics no longer are concerned about Papal infallibility - except where the rubber hits the road with the introduction of new innovations by the Pope and his Magisterium. There is a great and serious theological conflict between contending for the infallibility of the Pope and his general role of being the Vicar of Christ, and resisting the very one who is divinely vested with these very powers.

Either the Pope reigns supreme in His Church and all members of it must meekly and obediently follow all of His guidance, or the Pope does not and Catholic laity are free to follow the dictates of their conscience. This, as previously posted, appears to be the case in terms of contraception.

 

[BillMcEnaney]

The difficulty here is that, unlike the EOC, which essentially has frozen its theology and its praxis as it developed by the fifth or sixth century, the RCC has embraced a theology of development. Thus, it has a continuing history of change and evolution. As a clear example, we have been discussing the evolving role of the Pope. In 1870 the Pope consummated his role as one of supreme authority where he could speak infallibly. Thus, all the Papal Bulls of previous centuries, which had various direct and indirect references to infallibility, were relegated to the trash bin of the Vatican and a new, improved form was introduced. This was an earthquake in Catholic theology with one result being the split in the Polish Catholic Church between traditionalists who rejected this modern notion and formed the Polish National Catholic church and progressivists who went with the flow from Rome.

Today, Catholics no longer are concerned about Papal infallibility - except where the rubber hits the road with the introduction of new innovations by the Pope and his Magisterium. There is a great and serious theological conflict between contending for the infallibility of the Pope and his general role of being the Vicar of Christ, and resisting the very one who is divinely vested with these very powers.

Either the Pope reigns supreme in His Church and all members of it must meekly and obediently follow all of His guidance, or the Pope does not and Catholic laity are free to follow the dictates of their conscience. This, as previously posted, appears to be the case in terms of contraception.

My friend, I wonder whether you know what Catholics mean when we say doctrines develop. We believe doctrine develops organically. We can learn more and more about a doctrine, find new ways to argue for it, see logical relationships between it and other parts of the Catholic Faith, and do much more. But the doctrine already contains what we find in it.

Doctrine develops like a rose. The farther a rosebud opens, the more detail you'll see in it. Think of DNA. It tells you what properties an organism will have, and you can deduce those properties from it. Organic development preserves the developing thing. Mutation harms it So Eastern Orthodox theology is like a rosebud that won't bloom. Even if you see tiny patches of petal color, most of the flower stays hidden. They could learn much more about what they already know. But they need to explore their knowledge to find the "missing" parts of it.

The Oath Against Modernism​

​

Pope Pius X - 1910

THE OATH AGAINST MODERNISM​

To be sworn to by all clergy, pastors, confessors, preachers, religious superiors, and professors in philosophical-theological seminaries.

I . . . . firmly embrace and accept each and every definition that has been set forth and declared by the unerring teaching authority of the Church, especially those principal truths which are directly opposed to the errors of this day. And first of all, I profess that God, the origin and end of all things, can be known with certainty by the natural light of reason from the created world (see Rom. 1:19), that is, from the visible works of creation, as a cause from its effects, and that, therefore, his existence can also be demonstrated: Secondly, I accept and acknowledge the external proofs of revelation, that is, divine acts and especially miracles and prophecies as the surest signs of the divine origin of the Christian religion and I hold that these same proofs are well adapted to the understanding of all eras and all men, even of this time. Thirdly, I believe with equally firm faith that the Church, the guardian and teacher of the revealed word, was personally instituted by the real and historical Christ when he lived among us, and that the Church was built upon Peter, the prince of the apostolic hierarchy, and his successors for the duration of time. Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical’ misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously. I also condemn every error according to which, in place of the divine deposit which has been given to the spouse of Christ to be carefully guarded by her, there is put a philosophical figment or product of a human conscience that has gradually been developed by human effort and will continue to develop indefinitely. Fifthly, I hold with certainty and sincerely confess that faith is not a blind sentiment of religion welling up from the depths of the subconscious under the impulse of the heart and the motion of a will trained to morality; but faith is a genuine assent of the intellect to truth received by hearing from an external source. By this assent, because of the authority of the supremely truthful God, we believe to be true that which has been revealed and attested to by a personal God, our creator and lord.
Furthermore, with due reverence, I submit and adhere with my whole heart to the condemnations, declarations, and all the prescripts contained in the encyclical Pascendi and in the decree Lamentabili,especially those concerning what is known as the history of dogmas. I also reject the error of those who say that the faith held by the Church can contradict history, and that Catholic dogmas, in the sense in which they are now understood, are irreconcilable with a more realistic view of the origins of the Christian religion. I also condemn and reject the opinion of those who say that a well-educated Christian assumes a dual personality-that of a believer and at the same time of a historian, as if it were permissible for a historian to hold things that contradict the faith of the believer, or to establish premises which, provided there be no direct denial of dogmas, would lead to the conclusion that dogmas are either false or doubtful. Likewise, I reject that method of judging and interpreting Sacred Scripture which, departing from the tradition of the Church, the analogy of faith, and the norms of the Apostolic See, embraces the misrepresentations of the rationalists and with no prudence or restraint adopts textual criticism as the one and supreme norm. Furthermore, I reject the opinion of those who hold that a professor lecturing or writing on a historico-theological subject should first put aside any preconceived opinion about the supernatural origin of Catholic tradition or about the divine promise of help to preserve all revealed truth forever; and that they should then interpret the writings of each of the Fathers solely by scientific principles, excluding all sacred authority, and with the same liberty of judgment that is common in the investigation of all ordinary historical documents.

Finally, I declare that I am completely opposed to the error of the modernists who hold that there is nothing divine in sacred tradition; or what is far worse, say that there is, but in a pantheistic sense, with the result that there would remain nothing but this plain simple fact-one to be put on a par with the ordinary facts of history-the fact, namely, that a group of men by their own labor, skill, and talent have continued through subsequent ages a school begun by Christ and his apostles. I firmly hold, then, and shall hold to my dying breath the belief of the Fathers in the charism of truth, which certainly is, was, and always will be in the succession of the episcopacy from the apostles. The purpose of this is, then, not that dogma may be tailored according to what seems better and more suited to the culture of each age; rather, that the absolute and immutable truth preached by the apostles from the beginning may never be believed to be different, may never be understood in any other way.

I promise that I shall keep all these articles faithfully, entirely, and sincerely, and guard them inviolate, in no way deviating from them in teaching or in any way in word or in writing. Thus I promise, this I swear, so help me God. . .

Pope St. Pius X X had genuine development in mind when he wrote hi Anti-modernist Oath that priests swore before Vatican II.
The Oath against Modernism

 

[BillMcEnaney]

Yes, there are very significant differences between the pre- and post-Vatican two masses, not the least of which is the location of the altar and the position of the priest performing the mass.

Despite the fact that many tradition Christians believe that all traditional (i.e. Classical) music is Christian, it certainly was not. Likewise, not all Contemporary popular music is heathen and secular.

Sure, there's non-heathen popular music. But it doesn't belong at the Traditional Latin Mass. I abandoned the New Mass partly because it was easy to abuse liturgically. Priests too many ways to change it. Some folk groups even played "rock concerts" at some Masses I attended. Catholics shouldn't attend Holy Mass for the entertainment. They should go there to glorify God and be at the Sacrifice Christ offers Himself to God the Father through the priest.

Christ doesn't die again. But the bread and the wine become His Body and Blood.

Eucharistic miracle in Lanciano, Italy, Part 1
Eucharistic Miracle in Lanciano, Italy, Part 2

 

[Jonaitis]

I am going to have to agree with my church's confession:

"The purest churches under heaven are subject to mixture and error (1 Corinthians 5; Revelation 2; Revelation 3). Some have degenerated so much that they have ceased to be churches of Christ and have become synagogues of Satan (Revelation 18:2; 2 Thessalonians 2:11, 12). Nevertheless, Christ always has had and will have in this world to the very end a kingdom of those who believe in him and profess his name (Matthew 16:18; Psalms 72:17; Psalm 102:28; Revelation 12:17).
— Second London Baptist Confession, Chapter 26, Section 3

 

[bbbbbbb]

My friend, I wonder whether you know what Catholics mean when we say doctrines develop. Weve doctrine develops organically. We can learn more and more about a doctrine, find new ways to argue for it, see logical relationships between it and other parts of the Catholic Faith, and do much more. But the doctrine already contains what we find in it.

Doctrine develops like a rose. The farther a rosebud opens, the more detail you'll see in it. Think of DNA. It tells you what properties an organism will have, and you can deduce those properties from it. Organic development preserves the developing thing. Mutation harms it So Eastern Orthodox theology is like a rosebud that won't bloom. Even if you see tiny patches of petal color, most of the flower stays hidden. They could learn much more about what they already know. But they need to explore their knowledge to find the "missing" parts of it.

The Oath Against Modernism​

​

Pope Pius X - 1910

THE OATH AGAINST MODERNISM​

To be sworn to by all clergy, pastors, confessors, preachers, religious superiors, and professors in philosophical-theological seminaries.

I . . . . firmly embrace and accept each and every definition that has been set forth and declared by the unerring teaching authority of the Church, especially those principal truths which are directly opposed to the errors of this day. And first of all, I profess that God, the origin and end of all things, can be known with certainty by the natural light of reason from the created world (see Rom. 1:19), that is, from the visible works of creation, as a cause from its effects, and that, therefore, his existence can also be demonstrated: Secondly, I accept and acknowledge the external proofs of revelation, that is, divine acts and especially miracles and prophecies as the surest signs of the divine origin of the Christian religion and I hold that these same proofs are well adapted to the understanding of all eras and all men, even of this time. Thirdly, I believe with equally firm faith that the Church, the guardian and teacher of the revealed word, was personally instituted by the real and historical Christ when he lived among us, and that the Church was built upon Peter, the prince of the apostolic hierarchy, and his successors for the duration of time. Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical’ misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously. I also condemn every error according to which, in place of the divine deposit which has been given to the spouse of Christ to be carefully guarded by her, there is put a philosophical figment or product of a human conscience that has gradually been developed by human effort and will continue to develop indefinitely. Fifthly, I hold with certainty and sincerely confess that faith is not a blind sentiment of religion welling up from the depths of the subconscious under the impulse of the heart and the motion of a will trained to morality; but faith is a genuine assent of the intellect to truth received by hearing from an external source. By this assent, because of the authority of the supremely truthful God, we believe to be true that which has been revealed and attested to by a personal God, our creator and lord.
Furthermore, with due reverence, I submit and adhere with my whole heart to the condemnations, declarations, and all the prescripts contained in the encyclical Pascendi and in the decree Lamentabili,especially those concerning what is known as the history of dogmas. I also reject the error of those who say that the faith held by the Church can contradict history, and that Catholic dogmas, in the sense in which they are now understood, are irreconcilable with a more realistic view of the origins of the Christian religion. I also condemn and reject the opinion of those who say that a well-educated Christian assumes a dual personality-that of a believer and at the same time of a historian, as if it were permissible for a historian to hold things that contradict the faith of the believer, or to establish premises which, provided there be no direct denial of dogmas, would lead to the conclusion that dogmas are either false or doubtful. Likewise, I reject that method of judging and interpreting Sacred Scripture which, departing from the tradition of the Church, the analogy of faith, and the norms of the Apostolic See, embraces the misrepresentations of the rationalists and with no prudence or restraint adopts textual criticism as the one and supreme norm. Furthermore, I reject the opinion of those who hold that a professor lecturing or writing on a historico-theological subject should first put aside any preconceived opinion about the supernatural origin of Catholic tradition or about the divine promise of help to preserve all revealed truth forever; and that they should then interpret the writings of each of the Fathers solely by scientific principles, excluding all sacred authority, and with the same liberty of judgment that is common in the investigation of all ordinary historical documents.

Finally, I declare that I am completely opposed to the error of the modernists who hold that there is nothing divine in sacred tradition; or what is far worse, say that there is, but in a pantheistic sense, with the result that there would remain nothing but this plain simple fact-one to be put on a par with the ordinary facts of history-the fact, namely, that a group of men by their own labor, skill, and talent have continued through subsequent ages a school begun by Christ and his apostles. I firmly hold, then, and shall hold to my dying breath the belief of the Fathers in the charism of truth, which certainly is, was, and always will be in the succession of the episcopacy from the apostles. The purpose of this is, then, not that dogma may be tailored according to what seems better and more suited to the culture of each age; rather, that the absolute and immutable truth preached by the apostles from the beginning may never be believed to be different, may never be understood in any other way.

I promise that I shall keep all these articles faithfully, entirely, and sincerely, and guard them inviolate, in no way deviating from them in teaching or in any way in word or in writing. Thus I promise, this I swear, so help me God. . .

Pope St. Pius X X had genuine development in mind when he wrote hi Anti-modernist Oath that priests swore before Vatican II.
The Oath against Modernism

Thank you for the excellent presentation of the Catholic understanding of doctrinal development. It was what I intended to describe in my previous post. Indeed, the Catholic Church believes and practices doctrinal development unlike other branches of Christianity such as the EOC.

In the twentieth century Modernism was clearly understood and defined. In the present century Modernism has been eclipsed by Post-Modernism. Post-Modernism incorporates certain aspects of Modernism while also including certain aspects of earlier ideas, which are frequently parodied, rather than imitated.

In any event, the case can be made (not by myself, of course) that the current Pope is not at all a Modernist, but, in fact, is a Post-Modernist. If that is the case, then Pope Pius XX's Anti-Modernist Oath is irrelevant. I have no doubt that Pope Francis sincerely believes that He is being divinely guided in his pontificate. As with every Pope, he has his detractors and schismatics within his fold. The Catholic Church expects its members to meekly and humbly submit to it and its Pope. I think we can agree, at least, on this aspect.