Apocryphal Texts and Papal Infallibility

[Abulafia]

I was mulling over random things in my deluded mind, when I picked up the titular Apocrypha, a collection of purportedly "Biblical" texts of dubious authenticity. These books were omitted from the Bible, due to being "heretical" or "disingenous". They were officialy omitted from the Bible, due to these claims. I then considered Papal Infallibility, the ruling of the Pope, allied by the Magisterium, on matters of faith, considered by Catholics to be "infallible". Papal Infallibility can only be applied to matters of "faith" or "morals" (the latter I believe to be a broad, subjective expanse for infallible say). The quoted verse to back up this gargantuan claim to despotic rule is:

Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven" (Matt. 18:18)

and

"He who hears you hears me" (Luke 10:16)

Consider (hypothetically):

Supose a/the book(s) of the Apocrypha were in reality, genuinely inspired and directed by God...an authentic text, by golly the canonical books have enough contradictions :yes:....that a few more discrepancies couldn't hurt, unless it competes with primary message, or such....

Secondly, the papal authority deems the Apocrypha to be untrue, with the full backing of the Pope and Magisterium, being infallible....

What happens now? Is the event erased in time, pulled down and throttled by a contradicted Omni-ridden God, a micrometer of time, reality expunged from the massive whole? Does this Papal decree undermine even time, rewritting zeitgeists and putting "genuine" prophets to the Bastille of Aeons?

This doesn't have to hold for just the Apocrypha, it can hold with genuine "miracles", and genuine "acts of God", the only thing that can chain God, is his acolytes....

Please.

I anticipate the atheistic response: That's why Papal infallibility is wrong, never was, a flaw of logic, kaput....yes, yes, we acknowledge the prejudices, please, instead point out flaws in my logic or somesuch....

 

[fallingblood]

I think you're making a complicated topic into something that is just black and white. Some of these apocryphal texts were and are considered valuable. The reason they were not included in the Bible, for many of them, was because of a combination of reasons. This could be everything from not having been written close enough in time to the actual events, not having a large enough readership, not adding anything that was needed to the canon, or simply did not fit in.

Without a proper understanding of why various books were omitted (and each book would have to be examined separately), it would be hard to really discuss the issue.

 

[Abulafia]

I think you're making a complicated topic into something that is just black and white. Some of these apocryphal texts were and are considered valuable. The reason they were not included in the Bible, for many of them, was because of a combination of reasons. This could be everything from not having been written close enough in time to the actual events, not having a large enough readership, not adding anything that was needed to the canon, or simply did not fit in.

Without a proper understanding of why various books were omitted (and each book would have to be examined separately), it would be hard to really discuss the issue.

Hence "hypothetical".

 

[Kathryn]

News flash - until the Reformation (in other words for about 1200 years), the 7 books that most people consider the "Apocrypha," were included as regular books of the bible - in all bibles since around 380 ad. They are actually referred to by Catholics as the Deuterocanonical books. Martin Luther had them thrown out (he also wanted to throw out James and Revelations but was overruled on that one). Catholic bibles still have 73 books in them, not 66.

Are these the books in question?

 

[gnostic]

The Orthodox churches still have the apocryphal texts, because the Old Testament is pretty much based on the Septuagint Bible. However, the Greek bible doesn't include any of literature from , which means the Book of Enoch and Book of Jubilees are not in the Septuagint bible.

Are you actually referring to the Pseudepigrapha, Abulafia?

 

[Abulafia]

News flash - until the Reformation (in other words for about 1200 years), the 7 books that most people consider the "Apocrypha," were included as regular books of the bible - in all bibles since around 380 ad. They are actually referred to by Catholics as the Deuterocanonical books. Martin Luther had them thrown out (he also wanted to throw out James and Revelations but was overruled on that one). Catholic bibles still have 73 books in them, not 66.

Are these the books in question?

No, the Anagignoskomena.

 

[Kathryn]

The Christian belief is that God protects the validity of His Word, and has guided man to determine the canon of inspired scriptures.

Even after Martin Luther and the Reformers determined that the 7 deuterocanonical books were not as "sound" as the other 66 books, they were included in most bibles, even protestant ones, till well into the 20th century, though labeled "Books of the Apocrypha." In fact, they can still be found in many protestant bibles under that section.

Just clarifying.

 

[Abulafia]

The Christian belief is that God protects the validity of His Word, and has guided man to determine the canon of inspired scriptures.

Even after Martin Luther and the Reformers determined that the 7 deuterocanonical books were not as "sound" as the other 66 books, they were included in most bibles, even protestant ones, till well into the 20th century, though labeled "Books of the Apocrypha." In fact, they can still be found in many protestant bibles under that section.

Just clarifying.

Thankyou.

For all future posters: I used the reference to the Apocrypha and Anagignoskomena as a parabolic element, look to the bottom of my post to see the essence.

 

[Mister Emu]

Supose a/the book(s) of the Apocrypha were in reality, genuinely inspired and directed by God...an authentic text, by golly the canonical books have enough contradictions :yes:....that a few more discrepancies couldn't hurt, unless it competes with primary message, or such....

Secondly, the papal authority deems the Apocrypha to be untrue, with the full backing of the Pope and Magisterium, being infallible....

What happens now? Is the event erased in time, pulled down and throttled by a contradicted Omni-ridden God, a micrometer of time, reality expunged from the massive whole? Does this Papal decree undermine even time, rewritting zeitgeists and putting "genuine" prophets to the Bastille of Aeons?

Mistaking the process, the Pope's, or the Council's, declaration does not make it true, they declare it because it is true...

The infallibility of the Church and Pope do not stem from them, but from protection from God from declaring incorrectly...

 

[Abulafia]

Mistaking the process, the Pope's, or the Council's, declaration does not make it true, they declare it because it is true...

The infallibility of the Church and Pope do not stem from them, but from protection from God from declaring incorrectly...

Must I refer to the (please don't make me, please, cliche, cliche, cliche) INQUISITION!!!

:run:

Oh yeah, and cats are the product of the devil....

:bkcat:

 

[Mister Emu]

Must I refer to the (please don't make me, please, cliche, cliche, cliche) INQUISITION!!!

Nobody expects the spanish inquisition!

What part of the inquisition was infallible declared dogma?

Oh yeah, and cats are the product of the devil....

Same question...

 

[Abulafia]

Nobody expects the spanish inquisition!

NEVER!

What part of the inquisition was infallible declared dogma?

I try to stay wikipedia free on debate-threads, so I believe it was one of the Innocents' (perhaps 10th?) Papal Bull. I had to do an essay on it at one point in time, but memory escapes me.

Same question...

Just a minute....

 

[Smoke]

please, instead point out flaws in my logic or somesuch....

1) If a book is inspired and the pope is infallible, the pope will not make an ex cathedra declaration that the book is not inspired. It will never be necessary for God to change the facts to match a papal declaration; God will, instead, preserve the pope from making an error in the first place.

2) There's no particular reason why all inspired books must be included in the canon of scripture; thus, the exclusion of a book from the canon doesn't constitute a declaration that the book is not inspired.

 

[Smoke]

I try to stay wikipedia free on debate-threads, so I believe it was one of the Innocents' (perhaps 10th?) Papal Bull. I had to do an essay on it at one point in time, but memory escapes me.

Good luck with that. Even the fact that Pope Honorius I was posthumously condemned as a heretic -- he was a Monothelite -- is not considered problematic for the doctrine of papal infallibility. One of the unwritten principles of Catholic theology is that an errant papal declaration is by definition not an ex cathedra declaration.

 

[wmjbyatt]

Catholic Catechism does not teach that whereof the Pope speaks, thereof Truth is made. The Catechism teaches rather that the Pope is bound by the Might of God against speaking falsely. There's a story that's told in Catechism classes (I heard it when studying for Confirmation) about a Pope ages ago who was writing a new translation of the Bible, from the Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic into Latin. He finished, and was happy, and before he could publish he mysteriously died. Upon inspection, it was discovered that his translation sucked. So the Pope is limited and cannot speak falsely Ex Cathedra. So in your hypothetical example, the Pope would (theoretically) be incapable of calling the Apocrypha false if it is, indeed, true.

How the Church reconciles this with the fact that Popes have contradicted each other is utterly beyond me. Hell, if I recall correctly, didn't Ratzinger recently declare Limbo to not exist? I'm pretty sure other Papacies said it DID. Infallibility is confusing there...

 

[Smoke]

How the Church reconciles this with the fact that Popes have contradicted each other is utterly beyond me.

Papal infallibility doesn't really mean much. After the temporary insanity of the First Vatican Council, the Church of Rome soon began to define papal infallibility virtually out of existence. They usually say there's only been one infallible proclamation since the doctrine of infallibility was adopted in 1870: Pius XII's definition of the Assumption of Mary as an article of faith.

In 1994 John Paul II issued an apostolic letter, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, with the stated intention of settling once and for all the question of women's ordination; even that letter is not considered infallible.

The bar is set so low for this doctrine that it's easy to clear it. If Ratzinger were to issue an ex cathedra declaration defining as an article of faith the doctrine that Mary was not assumed into heaven, then you'd have a problem. Even that problem could easily be resolved by claiming that the declaration was a forgery, that it was issued fraudulently or under duress, or that Benny was an antipope.

 

[Abulafia]

Papal infallibility doesn't really mean much. After the temporary insanity of the First Vatican Council, the Church of Rome soon began to define papal infallibility virtually out of existence. They usually say there's only been one infallible proclamation since the doctrine of infallibility was adopted in 1870: Pius XII's definition of the Assumption of Mary as an article of faith.

In 1994 John Paul II issued an apostolic letter, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, with the stated intention of settling once and for all the question of women's ordination; even that letter is not considered infallible.

The bar is set so low for this doctrine that it's easy to clear it. If Ratzinger were to issue an ex cathedra declaration defining as an article of faith the doctrine that Mary was not assumed into heaven, then you'd have a problem. Even that problem could easily be resolved by claiming that the declaration was a forgery, that it was issued fraudulently or under duress, or that Benny was an antipope.

I wasn't aware of the ambiguity of the declaration...you would think that the HS would guide you equally in all matters, making every word infallible....that's really strange. I am always interested in these sorts of things.....:areyoucra

 

[sojourner]

Must I refer to the (please don't make me, please, cliche, cliche, cliche) INQUISITION!!!

:run:

Oh yeah, and cats are the product of the devil....

:bkcat:

you do realize that the institution of ex cathedra was not invoked until after the Inquisition? It has only been invoked 3 or 4 times, and all of those claims revolved around Marian theology.

 

[sojourner]

I was mulling over random things in my deluded mind, when I picked up the titular Apocrypha, a collection of purportedly "Biblical" texts of dubious authenticity. These books were omitted from the Bible, due to being "heretical" or "disingenous". They were officialy omitted from the Bible, due to these claims.

The canon was originally a starting point, not "where the buck stopped." The canon was originally a list of "stuff we can read in church."

 

[Dunemeister]

We should remember that not everything a pope "declares" is done so ex cathedra. So the fact that popes disagree does not call the doctrine into question. Common sense does.