Papal infallibility

CrazyCatLady3

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_papal-infallibility?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:615Discussion:842c31c7-ef74-4b26-af0d-c4e6452dd065Post:72f5e811-3193-4f54-8889-9db4649e0c34">Re: Papal infallibility</a>:
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: Papal infallibility : You're misunderstanding my argument.  I'm not arguing that because there was evidence of a dead body, she must have been assumed, or that people began to believe the assumption because of this. What I'm saying is that from the beginning, people knew she was assumed.  Presumably people witnessed it, and it fit in with their understanding of Mary as the first fruits of the resurrection.  Other people in Scripture have been assumed before, so it wasn't a new idea.  Because of this, no one ever spoke of her body or finding it because it was pointless. <strong>Just like they never looked for Jesus' body (until the more modern secular doubters bent on "disproving" the resurrection). </strong> And that's a HUGE deal because the early and medieval christians were big on relics.  They were always looking for relics, and people would steal them or even lie about having relics to get people to come visit their shrine ("Come to our town and see the arm of St. so and so").  The fact that no one ever claimed this about Mary proves that people believed in the assumption from the beginning, but it doesn't prove that she was in fact assumed. There are a lot of christian beliefs that weren't initially written down.  Christians were an oral culture, and passed down oral tradition.  You can find mentions of the assumption I think as early as the 3rd or 4th century, but no sooner.  They didn't see a necessity for writing down every belief.
Posted by monkeysip[/QUOTE]

<div>Isn't there something in the Bible about them rolling away the stone from Jesus' tomb and it was empty?</div>

professorscience

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_papal-infallibility?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:615Discussion:842c31c7-ef74-4b26-af0d-c4e6452dd065Post:2710dab3-90bc-4741-bb53-aaf253da4298">Re: Papal infallibility</a>:
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: Papal infallibility : Isn't there something in the Bible about them rolling away the stone from Jesus' tomb and it was empty?
Posted by CrazyCatLady3[/QUOTE]

<div>I think she was referring to post-Bible era searches.  Since it's in the Bible that they went to his tomb and he was not there, people have not searched since then.</div>

SquishyMine

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_papal-infallibility?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:615Discussion:842c31c7-ef74-4b26-af0d-c4e6452dd065Post:c8ebf592-36e6-45e5-950a-1101c14f325f">Re: Papal infallibility</a>:
[QUOTE]There's a good book called "Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma" by Ott. Also, there is some great information here: [ check out section 6 ] Dogma (all dogma are doctrine, but not all doctrines become dogma) - always infallibile - taught with with absolute certainty, divinely revealed - all Catholics must believe and obey (if you don't, you're commiting the sin of heresy) - can be clarified, but can never change or contradict previous dogma - ex. there is only one God Doctrine - basic teachings of the Church - are usually infallible, but not always - taught with moral certainty - all Catholics must obey, (also considered a sin if you don't, but is not heresy) - can be altered over time, but can never contradict previous doctrine or dogma - ex. teachings against contraception Discipline - practices within the Church - not infallible - can be changed over time - can be sinful to not follow - ex. abstinence from meat on Fridays Custom - can vary from different cultures throughout the Church - can be changed - ex. women wearing head coverings to mass
Posted by Riss91[/QUOTE]

<div><span style="color:#000000;font-family:Arial;font-size:13px;line-height:normal;">Thanks for the definitions.  Now we just have to figure out which example falls under which definition.</span></div><div><span style="color:#000000;font-family:Arial;font-size:13px;line-height:normal;">
</span></div><div><span style="color:#000000;font-family:Arial;font-size:13px;line-height:normal;">Unfortunately that book must be out of print because it's $82 used on Amazon.  </span></div><div><span style="color:#000000;font-family:Arial;font-size:13px;line-height:normal;">
</span></div><div><span style="color:#000000;font-family:Arial;font-size:13px;line-height:normal;">That section just says we're supposed to follow doctrine that's been declared infallible.  The hard part seems to be figuring out what's been declared infallible.</span></div>

Riss91

You could try this one: The Sources of Catholic Dogma, by Henry Denzinger

Also found this:

The Church has not yet compiled a list of all infallible teachings or dogmatic definitions.

Some of them—the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption—have been infallibly taught by a definition of the extraordinary magisterium (i.e., in a definition of a pope or an ecumenical council). Others—the male priesthood, the intrinsic evil of abortion and the deliberate killing of innocents—are infallibly taught, without a definition, by the Church’s ordinary magisterium.

Tests for whether a definition has been made include: (a) if a pope is writing, does he use the phrase "I define"? and (b) if a council is writing, does it use the phrase "let him be anathema"? If either of these is the case, it’s probably an infallible definition, especially as this language has been used in recent centuries. There are other ways popes and councils can issue definitions, but these are phrases commonly used to do so.

Also -
If you want to see a general, not all-inclusive list, there is one here: [anything with "de fide" next to it is considered dogma]

Riss91

Here's a link to where you can get the book by Dr. Ott electronically: http://archive.org/details/FundamentalsOfCatholicDogma

chelseamb11

Riss, thank you for posting that list! That clears quite a bit up!