Did the Bishops at the 1st Vatican Council, who voted on Papal Infallibility, possess infallibility?

3/31/2014 | Laissez-Faire Capitalist

[Laissez-faire capitalist]

A.) When the vote was taken on July 1870, at the First Vatican Council, with 433 votes in favour (placet) and only 2 against (non placet) against defining as dogma the infallibility of the pope when speaking ex cathedra, did those Bishops possess infallibility when (or at least only when) voting? Did any of them keep this infallibility (did it remain with all of them or any of them) after they left and returned home? Did any of these Bishops possess any infallibility at anytime before the vote was cast?

B.) Was Mary's (the Mother of Jesus) mother immaculately conceived as Mary was? Was Mary's grandmother immaculately conceived, too? If so, was there near-infinite regression of these immaculate conceptions? If so, how far back did these immaculate conceptions go? If they did not go back farther than two, why were only two and not say three or four immaculate conceptions needed?

C.) When the Apostle Paul confronted Peter (when Peter was being hypocritical concerning his eating with Jews and Gentiles), did the Apostle Paul possess infallibility when stating that Gentiles did NOT have to be circumcised as a requisite for being a Christian? If so, how many other Apostles possessed infallibility in their actions that were later recorded in the Book of Acts?

D.) During the time of the Western Great Schism of 1378, if papal infallibility was in existence at that time (and only later just codified), how could any person who was not one of the two Popes infallibly know (if they did not possess any measure of infallibility) which POpe was legitimate until this was later worked out? What about that period of time? Were people left "twisting in the wind?"

[Elsie]

Elsie, perhaps you have a mouse in your pocket when you say we, unfortunately there are those who claim to be Christian ministers who teach that Christ was not divine.

This is true; of course; but are they posting in THIS thread?

[Elsie]

History of the Church...

Damned HISTORY!!

It'll be the DEATH of us all!

[Elsie]

There is a barrier (by deliberate design, we would likely agree) which precludes that from occurring directly.

We?

Sadly, this view is VERY forbidden in most AMERICAN schools.

[Elsie]

This has implications...

I'd like to thank the United States Government for protecting me and my kind.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You see, 40 years ago, my odds of making it out of the egg, alive, were very poor; about 80% of us died. 

 (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=rachel-carson-silent-spring-1972-ddt-ban-birds-thrive)

 

 

But a lady discovered our plight and wrote a book that addressed our problem,

and, in 1972, a law was ammended protecting us even further. (http://www.fws.gov/midwest/eagle/protect/laws.html)

 

 

 

 

 

 

What I find strange is that the same government passed a law the very next year that allowed for killing

of unborn, and apparently unwanted, humans.  Little ones still nestled safely in their Mother's womb.

Around 25% of them are dying before birth - on average nearly 3,300 - every day of the year.

 

 

I hear that by now, somewhere around 55 MILLION of them have perished.

Wouldn't that kind of mess up the humans plans for growth, and welfare, and

retirement?

 

 

 

 

 

Strange birds; these Homo Sapiens.  Perhaps they'll come to their senses

before they are ALL dead!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'd like to thank the United States Government for protecting me and my kind.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You see, 40 years ago, my odds of making it out of the egg, alive, were very poor; about 80% of us died. 

 (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=rachel-carson-silent-spring-1972-ddt-ban-birds-thrive)

 

 

But a lady discovered our plight and wrote a book that addressed our problem,

and, in 1972, a law was ammended protecting us even further. (http://www.fws.gov/midwest/eagle/protect/laws.html)

 

 

 

 

 

 

What I find strange is that the same government passed a law the very next year that allowed for killing

of unborn, and apparently unwanted, humans.  Little ones still nestled safely in their Mother's womb.

Around 25% of them are dying before birth - on average nearly 3,300 - every day of the year.

 

 

I hear that by now, somewhere around 55 MILLION of them have perished.

Wouldn't that kind of mess up the humans plans for growth, and welfare, and

retirement?

 

 

 

 

 

Strange birds; these Homo Sapiens.  Perhaps they'll come to their senses

before they are ALL dead!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Elsie]

John 1:14

And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.

[Mad Dawg]

The “ontological oneness” tag comes from daniel1212, not from me. I deny it theologically and linguistically. I especially deny that it is lingusitically equivalent to Father/Son with respect to ontology.

I am a Dominican tertiary, as was deMontfort. I think of him as “Crazy Louie.”

I hope to have time for a more thoughtful reply later. I should say that the “heart” was a typo. I meant to say “heard.”

[Mad Dawg]

Okay, Let me try again, this time WITH coffee!

The biggest source of confusion may turn out to have been my typo. I meant to say, relying on the unity of two natures in one person, secundum Chalcedon, that when Mary hearD the heartbeat of her child, she heard the heartbeat of God.

Again, I think that daniel1212's proposition that the expression "Mother of God," implies ontological unity is mistaken. The suggestion that "Mother of God" has the same sort of implication as "Son of God," is very unlikely to be true.

Paul, IIRC, makes a distinction between "children" and "sons" because, as he says, "If sons, then heirs." The mother of the child is mother in any case, but the Father must acknowledge the child.

(This is why some 'de-sexing' and politically correct translations run the risk of blurring important matters.)

Further, as I have already written, in the biology of the time (and up to at least the time of Aquinas), the mother only supplies the 'stuff,' of the child while the quiddity is supplied by the Father.

Now, the hairy parts:

First, there is no denying that, leaving aside those formally charged with heresy, there is a lot of Marian nonsense out there. There are times when I want to give Crazy Louie and others a good shake! And this issue is complex, IMHO.

For example, in both the Memorare and the Salve Regina there is language that is over the top theologically. I personally found the Salve repellent until I heard it sung in Latin by some Cistercians after night prayers. Then I 'got' it.

And what I 'got' was something of which many non-Catholics do not think, and upon which they look with grave misgivings: Marian devotions (and devotions to other saints) often lead to deep affection. And the language of affection is not philosophical or theological. I make predications of my daughter TO my daughter that she and I both know are not, strictly speaking, true. But I am not going to stop saying she's the most wonderful girl in the world.

Words suggesting Necessity

When we say things like,"God HAD to to thus and such to redeem the world," it's a little more complicated that it may appear. As far as we know, God could have made what seemed to be a neonate (who was also God) without the involvement of a woman at all. Or He could have just presented to the world a perfectly human thirty-year-old Jewish guy (who was also God). This is one of the reasons that I prefer the word "fitting" to "necessary." We 'know' what He DID. He wouldn't do anything indecent. Therefore ...

okay That's quite enough for one post. Let me catch my breath and I will drone on (and on... and on .... and zzzzzzzz).

[daniel1212]

Who has ever said that Mary had a single thing not given to her? Certainly not me.

This sometimes-stated qualification itself means that th creator is not indebted to any of His creation, while the other problem is attributing to Mary things that Scripture nowhere states she or any mortal has been given.

It shall not more be said that thing formed shall say to Him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? (Romans 9:20) than to say to Him, "You owe me thanks."

And the Immaculate Conception is described as a result of a singular grace in the defining document.

Totally absent from Scripture. It is simply a tradition. Possible, yet unnecessary and highly unlikely not to have been stated, as are even less notable aspects of characters in Scripture, and you do not make doctrine out what is possible..

I do not think it is any more blasphemous to say IHS owed thanks to Mary than it is to say He suffered, was circumcised, was presented in the temple, was baptized with sinners.

That is not a valid comparison at all, as to be indebted, to owe thanks means the Creator needed man, versus having to create man whose very breathe is owed to God. Even Pharoah's evil actions were done because of common grace. Man is rewarded in God's covenantal grace to those who really deserved eternal damnation, but who are rewarded due to what they did bcz God enabled and motivated them to do what they otherwise would not and could not have done left to themselves. If i am what i am by the grace of God, (1Cor. 15:9) He owes me nothing, though He owes it to Himself to be faithful to reward in grace that which He promised to reward.

The idea that God owes Mary thanks is simply part of the Catholic elevation of man, and marginalization of the depravity of men, who in his best state is altogether vanity (Ps. 35:5; 62:9) apart from the righteousness which by faith in Christ, but which Catholicism saves by making him morally good enough to enter Heaven, versus holiness being evidence of the justifying faith that God rewards.(Heb. 6:9,10; 10:35)

I do not find the word “actual” in serious Eucharistic language. I don't think it means the same thing as real or substantial..In matters of this degree of technicality words get important..

Really. And it is inferred that all the CFs held to transubstantiation when that itself is difficult to precisely explain.

Remember Quix? When I got him to slow down long enough to get a glimmer of what we mean by “substantially”, he was almost angry to find how close it was to what he means by “spiritually.” I knew more philosophical work needed to be done, but at least we were FINALLY moving away from gristle and blood clots.

Remember with affection - in 28 point colored font! But i think any explanation that denies the elements are the actual body and blood of would place you on some Inquisitors list. A Trad. site states "The Eucharist is the actual flesh and blood of Jesus (as He makes clear), as well as His soul and divinity, but it primarily brings a spiritual endowment." - http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/the_Eucharist.pdf

[daniel1212]

As to Mary suffering for the sins of man, all the baptized are offered the same opportunity because we are baptized into Christ. There is nothing remarkable there. It’s all over Paul.

And so where do you see the Holy Spirit saying Paul suffered all the consequences of sin and we are saved through his merits? Even if said in a certain technical way, a recurrent problem in Mariology is that it expects the laity to understand such, thus the language of Scripture is reticent in praise of men and very sober in its assessment of them, while exalting God repeatedly and as unique. Thus even the Trinity is not explicitly spelled out.

[daniel1212]

wow...just wow...and today there are many (not you I take it) little de Monfortian wanna-be clones runnin' 'round figuratively-rhetorically shaking their rosaries at folks -- and even (I've had this happen to myself here on FR, dealt out to me by one of the most prolific thread OP's) telling those who push back against Montfort-styled hyper-Marionism (for lack of a handier term) that those who speak against the breathless rhetoric (and the theological implications) have committed the unpardonable sin of blaspheming the Holy Ghost --- while no other "Catholic" steps in saying "wait a minute, you are going too far sister", thus leaving Mary here and elsewhere be elevated even higher than Jesus; for He said of Himself that all manner of things said against or about Himself (His own person) could be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Holy Ghost ---not.

You mean "saint" Montfort. Whose college teachers, the Jesuits, were known for their zeal in propagating devotion to the angels. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_de_Montfort

It is all summed up in the unofficial policy Monsignor J.D. Conway with its essentially meaningless practical distinction:

We must never adore her; that is for God alone. But otherwise we cannot honor her to excess, because it is not possible to overestimate the privileges God gave her in making her His own Mother. - “What the church teaches,” by Monsignor J.D. Conway/ Imprimatur of Ralph L. Hayes,, New York; Harper and Brothers; 1962 (He also states, “It seems manifest that Christians simply adapted the art of pagan Rome to their religious needs:” p. 218)

You can somehow never honor Mary to excess, but know you are not adoring her. What this amounts to in practical terms is that Catholics can engage in forms the Scriptures collectively associate with idolatry or would be blasphemy when ascribed to men, such as attributing to entities beyond the grave the power to hear and respond to virtually infinite amounts of requests from earth, making offerings to such, kneeling, prostrating before such, imploring them for mercy and heavenly aid with fastings etc., ascribing vast powers in the unseen world, praising, blessing, extolling as possessing supreme virtues, in a word, "adoring," etc., as long as they claim they are only giving "hyperduliain" honor to the "mother of God," and not adoring her as God, who alone among those in Heaven is the recipient of the above in Scripture.

Idolatry does not have to mean the being supplicated is the supreme being, but includes ascribing to such uniquely Divine attributes and giving obeisance and adulation to those in the unseen world. beyond the grave, even if in submission to other deity, as in some forms of paganism. (http://www.hierarchystructure.com/greek-religious-hierarchy)

Thus we see pagans doing what Catholics do, "O Baal hear us," "O Mary hear us," and making offerings to, even as the Queen of Heaven, kneeling, prostrating before (and graven representatives thereof), beseeching such for help, directly accessing them by mental prayer, as beings possessing superior powers and Divine abilities in the unseen world.

Which is not once seen in Scripture, not even one single prayer by a believer on earth amidst its multitudes addressed to anyone in Heaven but the Lord. And the model prayer instructs us to pray to the Father, to whom the Spirit cries, (Gal. 4:6) which one has direct access to by the sinless shed blood of Christ, (Heb. 10:19) and who is the only intercessor btwn man and God, (1Tim. 2:5) and to whom we come directly, For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. (Romans 10:13) Which is a mark of Deity. It is quite certain that in Scripture if one was found kneeling, beseeching and directly praising one in the unseen world then he/she could not excuse it as simply engaging in hyperdulia. Even if the elect were to praise and supplicate a departed saints, the fine distinction btwn such hyperdulia and latria is too much to expect to be followed, and what Scripture does is censure some of the very things engage in towards departed saints (the distinction btwn "saints and other believers also being unscriptural) under the premise that this extrascriptual practice is sanctioned and that they are only engaging in dula or hyperdulia.

But the attitude of Catholics is much like that of their predecessors in "hyperdulia of a "Queen of Heaven" whom they cannot honor to excess:

But we will certainly do whatsoever thing goeth forth out of our own mouth, to burn incense unto the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, as we have done, we, and our fathers, our kings, and our princes, in the cities of Judah, and in the streets of Jerusalem: for then had we plenty of victuals, and were well, and saw no evil. (Jeremiah 44:17)

[Mad Dawg]

In my last letter, O Theophilus, I raised the difficulties and problems of the idea of "necessity," as applied to God and His actions. But, as is my wont, let me begin with a digression about a problem that I, as a Xtian theist, experience in discussions with atheists and, as a Catholic, experience in discussions with Protestants.

I am told that in both the original and the remake of Sagan's "Cosmos" there is a hint that in thinking that among all these billions and billions of stars, man would be the only rational animals is ego-centric. But a fortnight ago I urged my, ahem, auditors to consider that maybe, just maybe, God is 'crazy in Love with us.' Maybe we should look at all these splendors and wonders as something like the extravagant expressions of love which adolescent boys used to liable to.

In other words, what the atheists think is ego-centrism or vanity is not something we think about ourselves, but something we think about the ever-astonishing generosity, extravagance, one might even say profligacy of God.

Okay. Mutatis mutandis, despite the clear language of Ineffabilis Deus

... beatissimam Virginem Mariam in primo instanti suae Conceptionis fuisse singulari omnipotentis Dei gratia et privilegio, intuitu meritorum Christi Iesu Salvatoris humani generis, ab omni originalis culpae labe praeservatam immunem, ...

... the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, ...

people strangely persist in saying that there was something other than (to be redundant) gratuitous grace involved -- grace flowing through the saving act of IHS -- in Mary's immaculate conception. I can understand how one might disagree with the dogma. I cannot understand how anyone could say that WE TEACH that this had to do with intrinsic merits or characteristics of our Lady. Just as her being Theotokos, Dei Genetrix, and Dei Para depends not on her but on the gift and "operation" of the Holy Ghost, so also the only source of her freedom from sin is God Himself and His act in IHS XP.
===

Another reason to consider this dogma is to think about God and Time. In the union of the two natures in One Christ there are interesting aspects concerning time and eternity:

Before time began he was begotten of the Father, in respect of his deity,
and now in these "last days," for us and behalf of our salvation, this selfsame one was born of Mary the virgin, who is God-bearer, in respect of his humanness.

The relationship of time and eternity leads to interesting problems of theological expression. As an example, the Sin of Adam is from Creation to Easter, an utter disaster. But from Easter to the Consummation it is the "felix culpa," the happy fault which led to so astoundingly great a redemption:

O certe necessárium Adæ peccátum, quod Christi morte delétum est!
O felix culpa, quæ talem ac tantum méruit habére Redemptórem!

(I think I should say that I have been copared to jukebox. Put in a question, and I blab for half an hour.
But this is enough for one post.)

[Mad Dawg]

So, AFTER the Nativity, what we see is that Christ, in whom ALL the Grace and the PERFECTION of grace is embodied, came to us through Mary. While "hypothesis contrary to fact" arguments are almost always useless (Aslan doesn't talk about what might have been) we see what happened.

So it is not totally off the wall, in contemplation of events as they happened, to say that Mary is the gate of Grace. Personally, on both 3/25 and 12/25 I often find myself thinking of Ps. 24 and the entry of the King of Glory -- into the womb and into the world.

Daniel1212 balks at the idea of IHS owing thanks to Mary. If he has been married and fathered a child, maybe he should talk to his wife about it. I know that I thanked God more than daily for the privilege and delight of serving my infant child, and my gratefulness to her for being and to God for making her was not diminished by thinking she owed me some thanks -- even though I was in many respects her unprofitable servant since I did only what was required of me.

And though in some sense she SHOULD love me, the first time she actually said so, I practically melted into the floor for joy.

People say, and sometime we Catholics deserve it, that we have too much of a bookkeeping approach to merit and grace: one rosary = so many quanta of grace.

I think this, and Daniel1212's balking arise from an impoverished notion of justice and grace. Certainly at the first peel of the onion, all things come from God, and we only give Him what is His. But it is not for nothing that we more often speak of God as Father than as King.

It is altogether fitting and proper that my daughter should give me a gift on Father's Day -- even if I have to give her the money and drive her to the store. And as Father, when I receive the gift I provided, I love my daughter all the more and give her a big hug or two or a dozen.

So while the first peel of the onion is that I cannot owe my daughter anything, the second peel is that because of my great love for my daughter, I am delighted to owe her my love and thanks.

We present an inaccurate picture of God, IMHO, if we present him only as the Roman paterfamilias with all power, even of life and death, over his children. It's true, to be sure, but not true enough.

I'm too tired even to begin to talk about Pauline mysticism. I'll say this, that a word study on Paul's use of "in" and "into" and another on his use of "spirit" and "flesh" lead to interesting thoughts.

God does not lie. If he says we are sons and heirs, he means it to come to pass. The ontology of the perfected saint is, well, something to consider.

And all this, Daniel1212, is why I said we would have to start writing books. I have only skimmed the surface here.

[Mad Dawg]

Colossians 1:24.

We are IN Christ. We are Baptized INTO Christ. THe distinction between His merits and those of the perfected is there, but tenuous.

[Mad Dawg]

We have to distinguish between exposition and contention. It's a waste of time to interrupt and exposition with objections.

Remember with affection - in 28 point colored font! But i think any explanation that denies the elements are the actual body and blood of would place you on some Inquisitors list.

D00d! I'm a Dominican. If there's any inquisitin' to be done, I'm doin' it. ;-)

Seriously, A lot of people speak carelessly when it comes to the Sacrament. I'm safe because I assert "substantially" and even "really" while saying that I don't know what they mean by "actually."

[daniel1212]

I urged my, ahem, auditors

Into Scientology now?

people strangely persist in saying that there was something other than (to be redundant) gratuitous grace involved

Regardless, i did not argue God was not able to execute the IC, but that it is conspicuously not taught nor necessary.

Put in a question, and I blab for half an hour. But this is enough for one post

You usually get an hour with me.

[Mad Dawg]

LOL!

I call the poor slobs who listen to my talks “auditors” because “victims” seems to discourage them.

You usually get an hour with me.

Well, I give holiday sales ....

Some other time we should do the whole Scripture/Tradition thing. But of course, the short version is that if by Sola Scriptura one means "...so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite to salvation," well, there's no question we approach things differently.

That's Article VI of the 1801 Articles of Religion of the Episcopal Church in the US.
Mind you, I find no explicit warrant for Articles of Religion in Scripture ....

[daniel1212]

So it is not totally off the wall, in contemplation of events as they happened, to say that Mary is the gate of Grace.

Or that Eve indirectly was the gate of the gate, but again the problem is not what can simply be theologically allowed, but all the hyper-exaltation and 900+ titled adulation given to a holy instrument of God, which is imagined or extrapolated out of the little that is relatively said of her.

The silence of Scripture is to be respected as it is revelation, and it is one thing to explain what it written, and another thing to give praise and adulation to persons it does not, or far beyond what is sober description provides. We are "not to think of men above that which is written," (1 Corinthians 4:6) even beyond the divisions that causes (and it is part of our division with Catholics), even as we are think soberly of ourselves. (Rm. 12:3)

Considering that Paul was the primary medium for grace to the NT church as church planter and writer of most of the NT, and of whose sacrificial labor and work the Holy Spirit gives the most press to, and attributes no manifest sin, we could be serious when presenting 51 Biblical Proofs Of A Pauline Papacy , but while often quoted, we do see the manner of exaltation of men in Scripture which characterizes Rome.

Daniel1212 balks at the idea of IHS owing thanks to Mary. If he has been married and fathered a child, maybe he should talk to his wife about it. I know that I thanked God more than daily for the privilege and delight of serving my infant child,

That is another invalid analogy. You did not create your wife, nor do thank your son for choosing to be born, but as you are not the creator of him then you can be indebted to him for right choices he makes that benefit you.

But again, God needs nothing from man,

What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him? (Psalms 8:4)

God would have no grief without man or the fallen angels. And His command to worship is not because He needs it, but bcz it is right and is to our benefit.

And though in some sense she SHOULD love me, the first time she actually said so, I practically melted into the floor for joy.

But there is no reason by why of merit that God should love us, but instead her should hate us, and certainly is not indebted to him.

because of my great love for my daughter, I am delighted to owe her my love and thanks

No, you do not owe her a thing if you were perfect and all the good she has was from you, including her ability to express love, and the heart to do so. God rewards believers in grace, not because He is indebted to us.

Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; (Acts 17:25)

[terycarl]

Look at the current pope’s most recent on economics as proof that popes are not always right. WHAT??!!?? You smarter than a POPE?

Elsie, you are well aware of the fact that infallibility covers a very limited area...matters of faith and morals and only when officially declared so...Ex Cathedra

[Mad Dawg]

We're at the point of irreducible disagreement.

I say that out of Love God deigns in His Son to owe us some things; that his gifts are so transcendentally wonderful that we can be said, in Christ, even to have “merit.”

I understand you to say that the pre-Incarnation state of affairs of Psalm 8 persists.

To repeat myself, I think that, as in the differences over images — which may be a kind of diagnostic indication, come to think of it — we have different concepts of the meaning and implications of the Incarnation.

---

I think that grievous perversion of doctrine is no sign the doctrine is good or bad, except that “lilies that fester smell far worse than weeds.”

[terycarl]

The searched the SCRIPTURES - daily - to see if what they were being TOLD was true.

Hey, that post 187 gave a great picture of the bible....thanks to the Catholic Church, you have one to read....of course you've eliminated a few books that someone, somewhere didn't like !!