More proof that Catholicism is true

[davedan]

The name of the source is 'Pope Fiction'. Besides isn't it more likely that the Cardinals poisoned him.

[Sigmaleph]

Too many to count.

Wrong, actually. The answer is two. I'm sure everyone here including you can count that high.

Catholic theologians agree that both Pope Pius IX's 1854 definition of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary and Pope Pius XII's 1950 definition of the dogma of the Assumption of Mary are instances of papal infallibility, a fact confirmed by the Church's magisterium. However, theologians disagree about what other documents qualify.

Everything other than those two statements is in dispute.

So there's why you can't convince anyone of Catholicism via the doctrine of papal infallibility. Because if anyone looked through statements made by popes, and found a contradiction, you could say 'well, that one isn't infallible', and you'd have theologians agreeing that of course that one isn't.

Forgive me for not being impressed that the Catholic Church has managed to make two whole statements without obviously contradicting themselves. I guess it's better than one, at least.

[Jacob Harrison]

Too many to count.

Wrong, actually. The answer is two. I'm sure everyone here including you can count that high.

Catholic theologians agree that both Pope Pius IX's 1854 definition of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary and Pope Pius XII's 1950 definition of the dogma of the Assumption of Mary are instances of papal infallibility, a fact confirmed by the Church's magisterium. However, theologians disagree about what other documents qualify.

Everything other than those two statements is in dispute.

So there's why you can't convince anyone of Catholicism via the doctrine of papal infallibility. Because if anyone looked through statements made by popes, and found a contradiction, you could say 'well, that one isn't infallible', and you'd have theologians agreeing that of course that one isn't.

Forgive me for not being impressed that the Catholic Church has managed to make two whole statements without obviously contradicting themselves. I guess it's better than one, at least.

Well there are also the ecumenical councils which are said to be infallible when they define doctrine concerning faith or morals and none of the councils contradict each other despite there being 20 of them over a period of 2000 years(Excluding Vatican 2 because Vatican 2 did not define doctrine)

[dpareja]

Each of which had the records from the previous ones.

[Jacob Harrison]

It is amazing that only two statements are known to be infallible. If Papal Infallibility is not true, then there would have been a Pope over the last two thousand years that would have defined a doctrine that turned out to be in error. That never happened thus proving Papal Infallibility.

[Tolpuddle Martyr]

Yeah well the RCC has an easy out where it can declare erroneous statments to be not infallible thereby saving the "infallible" ones from being in error. Nothing miraculous about 20 20 hindsight and obtuse wording Jakey.

[Jacob Harrison]

Yeah well the RCC has an easy out where it can declare erroneous statments to be not infallible thereby saving the "infallible" ones from being in error. Nothing miraculous about 20 20 hindsight and obtuse wording Jakey.

But a non Catholic could easily prove a erroneous statement to be ex cathedra by showing how it was a doctrine defined concerning faith or morals. The fact that no non Catholics found an erroneous statement defining doctrine concerning faith or morals, proves that the Popes never defined erroneous doctrines concerning faith or morals.

[Skybison]

Aren't they the guys who threatened to torture a guy for saying the earth goes around the sun?

[Jacob Harrison]

Aren't they the guys who threatened to torture a guy for saying the earth goes around the sun?

But that is a matter of science not a matter of faith and morals, so the Pope did commit error when condemning Galileo but it wasn’t an ex cathedral error, so it does not disprove papal infallibility.

[dpareja]

Aren't they the guys who threatened to torture a guy for saying the earth goes around the sun?

But that is a matter of science not a matter of faith and morals, so the Pope did commit error when condemning Galileo but it wasn’t an ex cathedral error, so it does not disprove papal infallibility.

Except that at the time it was a matter of faith that the Earth was the centre of the universe.

[Tolpuddle Martyr]

Aren't they the guys who threatened to torture a guy for saying the earth goes around the sun?

But that is a matter of science not a matter of faith and morals, so the Pope did commit error when condemning Galileo but it wasn’t an ex cathedral error, so it does not disprove papal infallibility.

Except that at the time it was a matter of faith that the Earth was the centre of the universe.

Also Galileo's trial was coached entirely in terms of faith and morals. It didn't argue against his thesis by presenting a counter theory or disputing his evidence. His evidence was problematic for the RCC because it put the biblical contention that the Earth doesn't move in doubt.

The neat division between matters of science and matters of faith didn't exist back then, that's a modern viewpoint that was entirely alien in Galileo's time.

[Jacob Harrison]

Aren't they the guys who threatened to torture a guy for saying the earth goes around the sun?

But that is a matter of science not a matter of faith and morals, so the Pope did commit error when condemning Galileo but it wasn’t an ex cathedral error, so it does not disprove papal infallibility.

Except that at the time it was a matter of faith that the Earth was the centre of the universe.

Also Galileo's trial was coached entirely in terms of faith and morals. It didn't argue against his thesis by presenting a counter theory or disputing his evidence. His evidence was problematic for the RCC because it put the biblical contention that the Earth doesn't move in doubt.

The neat division between matters of science and matters of faith didn't exist back then, that's a modern viewpoint that was entirely alien in Galileo's time.

This is from a Catholic on Patheos.

How did the Roman Catholic Church at the time of Galileo know that the Pope’s discipline of Galileo was not infallible?

It’s very simple:

1. It wasn’t made by a pope.

2. It wasn’t made by an ecumenical council (in agreement with, or ratified by a pope).

[technically, neither papal and conciliar infallibility were expressly defined at that time at the highest levels of Catholic authority, though very widely believed and accepted by many centuries of practice; papal infallibility was made ex cathedra dogma in 1870 at the First Vatican Council; the Second Vatican Council treated conciliar infallibility, as I understand, in greater depth than ever before]

3. No accepted formula was expressed, in which all Catholic faithful were bound to hold this opinion as an article of the Catholic faith.

4. Even if #3 were true, the condemnation would be neither binding on all the faithful nor infallible, because of the source of the statement (per #1 and #2).

To clarify, the condemnation of Galileo and heliocentrism was done by an ecclesiastical tribunal commissioned by the Pope, not the Pope himself. The Pope therefore never made an Ex Cathedra decree on the matter.

[Skybison]

To clarify, the condemnation of Galileo and heliocentrism was done by an ecclesiastical tribunal commissioned by the Pope, not the Pope himself. The Pope therefore never made an Ex Cathedra decree on the matter.

Why didn't he?  Why didn't the pope make a pro-heliocentrism decree if he's so infallible?

[Jacob Harrison]

To clarify, the condemnation of Galileo and heliocentrism was done by an ecclesiastical tribunal commissioned by the Pope, not the Pope himself. The Pope therefore never made an Ex Cathedra decree on the matter.

Why didn't he?  Why didn't the pope make a pro-heliocentrism decree if he's so infallible?

Because he was a geocentrist. It is a miracle that he did not make a pro geocentrist decree proving that God prevented him from doing so, this proving Papal Infallibility.

[Skybison]

Why didn't God tell him Galileo was right?

Why didn't he explain germ theory to the Pope?

Or electricity?

I don't believe in Papal infallible because of what the Pope's don't say, not because of what they did.