Replies

>I would like to continue, but have other things I must do

I understand. I would like to continue, but time is valuable, and I appreciate your giving me yours. If you wish to continue this, but at a less regular schedule, I have no problems with that. If this is the case, I submit a few points to ponder.

>Just a couple of thoughts. A Council does not need a majority to establish truth on faith or morals. It needs the ratification of the Pope. Trent just ratified the Canon as originally determined in apx A.D. 310.

Ratified by Trent, yet between the times some of the DCB’s were rejected by a Pope (Gregory the Great rejected Maccabees). So if one Pope says no, it is not canonical, and one does, we are at an impasse. A infallible mexican standoff as it were.

I agree that a majority does not truth make, as I would argue that when Athenasus stood against the holy magesterium of the Catholic faith, as it stewed in its Arian Heresy, condemning and excommunicating the only bishop who was in the Scriptures. Again, proof of normal human fallibility from something that claims infallibility.

>Of course History teaches that the Traditions of the Church can change. But >I think one must distinguish between tradition in those things which are just common practice among the faithful and those which are related to faith and morals. The first change often, the latter must not change in such a way as to contradict their history. An example might be meat on Friday which can change versus the duty to do sacrificial acts as a reminder of our creaturehood and Christ’s ultimate sacrifice and of our submission to God. The Church has always taught the necessity of sacrifice. It has not always taught that not eating meat on Friday was a necessary sacrifice.

So you are saying that Papal infallibility, the Marion Dogmas, Purgatory and the Treasury of Merit ARE traditions which have been handed down en toto from the early church?

Obviously we will continue sporadically. That is fine with me, but know that I am just a laywoman who has studied her faith informally.

So if one Pope says no, it is not canonical, and one does, we are at an impasse. A infallible mexican standoff as it were.
_ Actually, I think you have a misunderstanding about infallibility. Every thing a Pope says or holds as a private person or is not infallible. Therefore, historically you can find lots of disagreements between Popes. They have the same authority as two theologians. Neither is settled.

Infallibility is about faith and morals only and is found in three ways. One, when the Pope intends to declare something infallible and does so in a formal declaration. Two, in an Ecumenical Council when the Pope ratifies it. Three when the Pope with the bishops scattered world wide holds something as true. This is not very precise language because I am writing off the top of my head, but it is close I think.

The same analysis goes for Athanasius. The Arian heresy is proof that Popes and Bishops can hold error and that infallibility is in the Church in a very limited way.

_________
Papal infallibility, the Marion Dogmas, Purgatory and the Treasury of Merit ARE traditions which have been handed down en toto from the early church?
_
No. I am saying that those teachings are traditions which DEVELOPED (Please read John Henry Cardinal Newman, an Anglican convert on the Development of Doctrine) The understanding of tradition and of revelation can grow. It must however, be logical and not contradictory with what has gone before. It also must have its seeds in Scripture or early traditions.

Hope that helps.