Talk:Infallibility of the Church

message: This entire section is not representative of the teaching of the Catholic Church. No such triple distinction is found in any Magisterial document, nor in the official Catechism. The author of this section is confusing the universal and ordinary Magisterium with the ordinary Magisterium. The former is infallible, the latter is non-infallible.
The categories are Extraordinary (or Sacred) Magisterium and Ordinary Magisterium. The former is always infallible and includes the unfortunately-named 'ordinary and universal Magisterium'. The latter is non-infallible. All the teachings of the Magisterium are authentic. --Ronconte 23:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infalliblity in the Authentic, Ordinary, and Extraordinary Magisterium 

message: Why the change from  to ?  The article is primarily about a doctrine more or less common to Catholics and Orthodox, and a subset of Protestants as well; it only mentions as a cross-reference the more specific doctrines particular to Catholics.
--Jim Henry | Talk 15:27, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, and have changed it back. Gentgeen 02:59, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stub message 

message: === Incoherent sentence: "believe to possess this" ? ===
This sentences seems incoherent,
:Pentecostals and Charismatics in various denominations believe to possess this authority, and as a result change their beliefs on certain issues due to divine personal revelation. 
but without more familiarity with Pentecostals I don't know what it's trying to say or how to correct it. --Jim Henry | Talk 12:54, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I fixed this.  Lawrence King 23:27, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pentecostal views 

message: This sentences seems incoherent,
:Pentecostals and Charismatics in various denominations believe to possess this authority, and as a result change their beliefs on certain issues due to divine personal revelation. 
but without more familiarity with Pentecostals I don't know what it's trying to say or how to correct it. --Jim Henry | Talk 12:54, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I fixed this.  Lawrence King 23:27, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incoherent sentence: "believe to possess this" ? 

message: Quote: 'Although Protestants generally do not use the word "infallibility", many mainline Protestant denominations accept that their own denomination is correct (at least in general) in its core beliefs.'
This is really a attempt to say 'protestant are guilty of infalibility too' - all ideologies (religions political or non-religious) belive that they are (in general correct) - that's quite different from a doctrine of infalibility. --Doc (?) 23:32, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Very fair criticism.  I shouldn't have phrased it like that.  I have rewritten the Infallibility of all believers section; let me know if it's an improvement. Lawrence King 05:35, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Protestant infalibility 

message: You, probably Ronconte, blew out my little candle of "criticism" (see version 28 Febr 2006 chapter "criticism"). This is not what wikipedia calls NPOV. I think it a sign of weakness. I am not interested in an edit war. All the best for you and all those who are frightened by a whiff of criticism. --hjn 13:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A lack of objectivity 

message: This site should have a link to the "Dictatus Papae" from 1090 by pope Gregory VII.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.56.208.71 (talk) 19:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dictatus Papae 

message: The section alleges that the "Infallibility concept" is misunderstood. As much as I can see, the "Infallibility concept" by itself makes negotiations impossible, because one cannot negotiate "infallible" statements. This notion of "misunderstanding" seems to be kind of an urban legend. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 18:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope it is... but still, I remember Bl. John Henry Newman in his Lectures on the Present Position of Catholics in England in fact dealing with the subject that infallibility means not impeccability.--93.133.198.174 (talk) 22:47, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Consequences for ecumenism" 

message: It would be interesting to try and explain, with relevant sources, how the infallibility of the Church is related to the doctrine of the Mystical Body of Christ. The notion that the Church is the mystical body is tantamount to asserting that the Church is Jesus himself, who is generally believed to be infallible because of the Nicean dogma on his divinity. ADM (talk) 19:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Mystical Body of Christ

message: For the most part, I applaud Esoglou's expanded text covering the controversy between the Franciscans and John XXII.  However, there are a couple of points that I think we still need to address.  
First of all, I was unable to understand the relevance of Olivi's assertion of papal infallibility to Exiit, the decree by Nicholas III establishing Franciscan poverty as a path to salvation?  What specifically caused Olivi to assert papal infallibility?
Secondly, Esoglou's text includes the following text: "a view contradicted by Klaus Schatz, Ulrich Horst, James Heft and John V. Kruse."  This text does an inadequate job of informing the reader what the opposition view is.  Do Schatz et al. dispute that Olivi asserted papal infallibility or simply that he was the first to do so?
--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 07:31, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Franciscan poverty controversy 

message: Why is this not tagged as needing references, as it has hardly any references for verification, and i am sure it is only presenting one side of a complex and interpretive issue among RC scholars?Daniel1212 (talk) 05:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Why no tag

message: This article should really be entitled "Indefectibility of the Church" rather than "Infallibility of the Church", this is even acknowledged in the opening paragraph. Such a change would make searching easier as well as being technically correct. At the very least there should be a re-direct to this article when searching "Indefectibility". Luke Reid (talk) 14:34, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Title - Proposal for change 

message: .. considering they had deacons as archbishops at one point there's no possible way they could claim apostolic succession. Even if they did their heretical views make it null and void.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.49.190.161 (talk) 00:07, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Anglican section makes no sense..

message: I removed this from another article where it was off-topic, but I thought it might be helpful here. Sondra.kinsey (talk) 21:40, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lumen gentium text 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Infallibility of the Church. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070222052844/http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article7063.asp to http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article7063.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:51, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified