You are like a reprobate liberal who still insists Palin said she sees Russia from her house. I already wrote you in a previous post that Church doctrines are operational long before they are explicitly defined:
"Just about all Catholic doctrine is implicit in her sacraments, such as the mass, baptism, confession, marriage, and consecration of priests, or in the Church hierarchical structure. The sacraments and hierarchy was set by the Apostles. Other than by Scripture, the Church does not define doctrine explicitly unless it is necessary to counter an heresy. Explicitly defined teachings are always based upon implicit teachings that have existed for many years or since the beginning of the Church. Petrine infallibility has been operational since it was established by Christ and exercised by Peter's early successors."
You never disputed this point. I can understand that you do not accept the doctrine of infallibility, but it makes no sense for you to mindlessly repeat the falsehood that Catholics themselves did not believe this doctrine prior to 1870.
You are like a reprobate liberal who still insists Palin said she sees Russia from her house. I already wrote you in a previous post that Church doctrines are operational long before they are explicitly defined:"Just about all Catholic doctrine is implicit in her sacraments, such as the mass, baptism, confession, marriage, and consecration of priests, or in the Church hierarchical structure. The sacraments and hierarchy was set by the Apostles. Other than by Scripture, the Church does not define doctrine explicitly unless it is necessary to counter an heresy. Explicitly defined teachings are always based upon implicit teachings that have existed for many years or since the beginning of the Church. Petrine infallibility has been operational since it was established by Christ and exercised by Peter's early successors."
You never disputed this point. I can understand that you do not accept the doctrine of infallibility, but it makes no sense for you to mindlessly repeat the falsehood that Catholics themselves did not believe this doctrine prior to 1870.
Maybe I wasnt clear, i never said no one believed until 1870. It was only officially put on the backs of the faithfull as required belief in 1870.
Certainly, it was believed by some(not universal) before 1870 as noted by Pope John XXII (1316-1334) who issued a papal bull condemning it as heresy.
The Jesuits convinced Pius IX to steam roll it thru the first Vatican council (likely a response to losing temporal authority), causing many non Italians to break with the church.
...You never disputed this point. I can understand that you do not accept the doctrine of infallibility, but it makes no sense for you to mindlessly repeat the falsehood that Catholics themselves did not believe this doctrine prior to 1870.
Fact: No Church Fathers EVER taught the doctrine of papal infallibilty. You can say it was implicit until you're blue in the face, but the fact that the Sixth Great Council, "universally received afterwards without hesitation throughout the Church, and presided over by Papal legates, pronounced the dogmatic decision of a Pope heretical, and anathematized him by name as a heretic is a proof, clear as the sun at noonday, that the notion of any peculiar enlightenment or in errancy of the Popes was then utterly unknown to the whole Church." And that decision was ratified by two succeeding Ecumenical Councils, as well as subsequent Popes. You can claim the principle was operational since Christ, but your assertion is not backed up by any patristic evidence and it is flatly contradicted by the written historical evidence in the case of Honorius.
And btw I didn't say that no one believed in papal infallibility until 1870, so I did not repeat any falsehood as you falsely accuse me of doing. I merely stated the historical fact that the notion wasn't even introduced until hundreds of years after Honorius.
...Other than by Scripture, the Church does not define doctrine explicitly unless it is necessary to counter an heresy. Explicitly defined teachings are always based upon implicit teachings that have existed for many years or since the beginning of the Church. Petrine infallibility has been operational since it was established by Christ and exercised by Peter's early successors."
Apply the bolded part to the heresy promulaged by Honorius, in his official capacity as Pope, and the anathemas pronounced by the Sixth Ecumenical Council and watch your head spin. You can call me a reprobate if you want, but I don't like being called a liberal.
Cordially,
It makes no sense for you to mindlessly declare that Papal Infallibility was universally accepted in the RCC prior to 1870. After 1870 "Catholics" were required to accept it.
For hundreds of years there was discussion and disagreement among Bishops, Theologians, and "Church Fathers" concerning the Bodily Assumption of Mary. After 1950 there could no longer be any discussion.
It makes no sense to mindlessly repeat the falsehood that the RCC universally believed in the Bodily Assumption prior to 1950.
mas cerveza por favor wrote:
“I can understand that you do not accept the doctrine of infallibility, but it makes no sense for you to mindlessly repeat the falsehood that Catholics themselves did not believe this doctrine prior to 1870.”
Diamond did not say that. His point is more than clear. Before (at least) the mid-7th century A.D. it is demonstrably true the bishops (pastors) of the Catholic (Christian) church did not accept or teach papal infallibility. It slowly developed from there until the pope and magisterial authorities felt emboldened enough to make public this abomination novel to apostolic Christianity. No matter how many new patches succeeding popes and councils keep putting on the decrepit old wineskin of post-7th century Roman Catholicism it keeps bursting at the seams and leaking.
Whatever truth was left in Roman doctrine 500 hundred years ago when Rome finally had “jumped the shark” in the eyes of the public the Reformation retained. Look at the Augsburg Confession, the Roman Confutation that gave Rome’s answer to it (what a pitiful answer!), and the Apology (Defense) of the Augsburg that demolished the Confutation.
Whatever truth has been left in it to this day is purely because of the grace of God and His unfathomable faithfulness to those believers in His Son who are still entangled in the braided cords of truth and falsehood that make up its deceptive web of teaching.