Infallibility!?


#1

What led the church to “change its mind” on such central issues as the Assumption of Mary and clerical celibacy?

If the Pope is the Vicar of Christ is God just that wishy-washy and change his mind or did all Popes prior to the alteration of said doctrines have it wrong before they were modified to their current state?

And, if the latter is the case, how can any Catholic still hold papal infallibility to be true!?


#2

I’ve always thought that Infallibility means that the church may stumble, but it can never fall. (correct me if I’m wrong).

None of those doctrines were “changed,” the church never taught that mary was not assumed, and celebacy is not considered “divine law,” from what I read.

By the way, those are only “central issues” to those who attack the Church.


#3

I just posted this, but Infallibility means that the church may stumble, but it can never fall.

None of those doctrines were “changed,” the church never taught that mary was not assumed, and celebacy is not considered “divine law,” from what I read.

By the way, those are only “central issues” to those who attack the Church.

Hold up.

At one point the clergy could marry. At some point, I believe circa 1150 they were disallowed from marrying. The church changed its doctrine for two possible reasons:

1.) It was God’s will.
2.) Out of a more secular or social concern or purpose.

If you contend the church imposed clerical celibacy due to the first, why didn’t God simply “tell” the first alleged Pope to implement this policy from the very beginning?


#4

Double hold up. Clerical celibacy is not a doctrine but a discipline. Big difference because popes can change disciplines every other week without affecting infallibilty.

As regards the Assumption, that tradition has always been around and finally was made dogmatic in the 20th century. So it is not a case of doctrinally untrue earlier, then suddenly doctrinally true in the 1950’s.


#5

Celibacy for Roman Catholic Priests (latin rite) is a discipline not doctrine.


#6

Rehighlighting this one to emphasize the difference between doctrine and discipline: whether or not the church allows its priests to marry is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

As regards the Assumption, that tradition has always been around and finally was made dogmatic in the 20th century. So it is not a case of doctrinally untrue earlier, then suddenly doctrinally true in the 1950’s.

Rehighlighting THIS one to emphasize that because the church has defined something as dogmatic does not mean that it was not true before. Dogmas are universal truths even before they are clearly defined.

Yes, i just made a post saying exactly the same thing as the original poster i quoted… why? because no matter how many times you say it, someone ALWAYS finds a way to miss those key distinctions.


#7

In regards to priestly celibacy, Canon 1 of the Synod Statement from the Council of Nicaea (A.D. 315) states:

“If a presbyter marry, let him be removed from his order; but if he commit fornication or adultery, let him be altogether cast out * and put to penance.”

The Council of Nicaea was the first ecumenical council and affirmed many things as traditions and official practices of the Church that had been traditions prior to that.

In any case, priests were forbidden to marry very early in the Church’s history.*


#8

:confused:


#9

Summary to OP:

  1. learn what constitutes doctrine before trying to use “doctrines” against the church
  2. learn the nature of dogma before trying to discuss

That’s the point of my post.


#10

Ok. :thumbsup: I need to air-blast the dust off the motherboard heat-sinks in my brain. :slight_smile:


#11

Hello,

Others have ably answered on the issue of clerical celibacy being a discipline and not a doctrine.

Why do you think that the teaching on the Assumption has changed?


#12

It’s not quite true that the belief in the assumption has always been around.

The earliest record only dates back to around the 4th or 5th centuray…if I remember right.

A catholic poster on another thread did make the point that the feast of the assumption dates back to the early second century but there is some debate apparently as to whether the feast in question was the feast of the assumption or something similar to the feast of the dormition.


#13

The term “central issues” is ambiguous and fails to communicate with the specificity required for this discussion. Your use of the term as equally descriptive of the Assumption and clerical celibacy means that you have not done very much homework. The Assumption of Mary is a Dogmatic teaching, and will remain part of the Catholic Faith forever, while clerical celibacy is merely a discipline which is potentially subject to change.
I am not aware of any “change of mind” regarding the Assumption, so you will have to specify what you mean before we can make any progress.

Neither. No one changed their mind and no one had anything wrong

Again, you have a lot of homework to do IF you are genuinely interested in learning anything. I would suggest www.catholic.com and go to the Library


#14

Please be careful with your wording. If you mean to say the first WRITTEN evidence of the doctrine appeared at a certain time, say that and don’t go beyond. Go here:
catholic.com/library/Immaculate_Conception_and_Assum.asp to see some information on all the evidence regarding the Assumption


#15

What other evidence would there be?

I’m not sure what the difference is between what I wrote and how you worded it above.


#16

The fact that when the belief was first written down, the Church didn’t immediately, or at any later time, declare it heretical.


#17

The difference is that you have assumed that since there is no written evidence, there simply was no belief in the doctrine of the Assumption. That simply is not the case.


#18

Not exactly.

As best I can remember, there is no existing evidence of any belief in the assumption until centuries after the apostles.

Was there a belief that pre-dates the evidence? Yeah…probably but you guys have no way of tracing it back to the apostles (as best I can tell).

As mentioned before, there may be some hope for you to do that based on a early date for the feast of the assumption but from what little I have looked into that, there is quite a bit of confusion as to what the early Marian feasts actually were celebrating.

I believe newadvent.org points out that what some historians/apologists take as being early evidence for being a feast of the assumption was actually a feast of the dormition.

I haven’t studied this part out in any detail so right now, I have no solid opinion as to when the first feast of the assumption took place.


#19

I’m not sure that’s exactly correct.

It seems I remember something about the first written evidence for the assumption being contained within gnostic texts which were condemned by Pope Don’t Know His Name.

You may already be familiar with this and know the details. I’ll have to look into it.


#20

You really wish to continue to debate whether you overstated your point? Well tenacity is a good thing. OK…

True or False: For a belief to exist it must be written down.

True or False: All written evidence has been discovered

Are any lightbulbs going on? :newidea:

Not that it is relevant to the specific point addressed above, but just so you have more info, read the link I provided to see the other “evidence” in favor of the Assumption.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.