Council of Trent

[Jac3510]

This is for Byblos, especially, being our resident Catholic

I was doing a bit of reading on the Council of Trent, and I noticed several decrees that struck me as "popular Catholicism" (you know - the stereotypical ideas about Catholicism that almost every Protestant/non-Catholic is taught from youth up). These peaked my interest the most:

• Canons on Justification
  If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone, meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification, and that it is not in any way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the action of his own will, let him be anathema. (Canon 9).
  
  If anyone says that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in divine mercy, which remits sins for Christ's sake, or that it is this confidence alone that justifies us, let him be anathema (Canon 12).
  
  If anyone says that man is absolved from his sins and justified because he firmly believes that he is absolved and justified, or that no one is truly justified except him who believes himself justified, and that by this faith alone absolution and justification are effected, let him be anathema. (Canon 14)
  
  If anyone says that the justice received is not preserved and also not increased before God through good works, but that those works are merely the fruits and signs of justification obtained, but not the cause of its increase, let him be anathema (Canon 24).
  
  Canon on Baptism
  If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation, let him be anathema (Canon 5).

I guess I have two major questions. First, in general, how does this fit with the papal quote you referenced in our previous discussion that salvation was through faith alone, and second, what is the Catholic concept of anathema? I looked it up on Wikipedia (not exactly the authority, I know, but if it's wrong, you could actually be the one to correct it ):

After the time of the apostolic church, the term anathema has come to mean a form of extreme religious sanction beyond excommunication. The earliest recorded instance of the form is in the Council of Elvira (c. 306), and thereafter it became the common method of cutting off heretics. Cyril of Alexandria issued twelve anathemas against Nestorius in 431. In the fifth century, a formal distinction between anathema and excommunication evolved, where excommunication entailed cutting off a person or group from the rite of eucharist and attendance at worship, while anathema meant a complete separation of the subject from the Body of Christ. While excommunication can be announced by a simple edict or papal bull, the Roman Catholic Church has a particular ceremony necessary for anathema, where a bishop clad in purple (the liturgical color of penitence) is required, and he is surrounded by twelve priests with lighted candles. As the sentence is uttered, the priests cast their lighted candles on the ground, to symbolize the exclusion of the anathematized group from the house of Israel.

Although anathema is the highest sanction of the church, it is usually pronounced in the form, "If anyone holds that..., anathema sit". (Let him be anathema.) Thus, the person as a person is rarely given to anathema, and a person can renounce the anathematized beliefs and be reconciled to the church.

Where would you recommend I go to get some more information on this? I could always wade through the millions of Catholic apologists, but if you had something in mind, it would make life much easier! Obviously, there has to be some sort of reconciliation to these ideas . . . one thing you can't fault Catholics for (it seems to me in my research so far) is shoddy historical precedent. I get the impression that they expand on what has already been said, moreso than introduce entire new doctrines. Thus, the question.

Thanks much,

God bless

[Turgonian]

(Entire new doctrines...like papal infallibility? But I'll let Byblos answer Jac's question...)

[Byblos]

Does everyone share the feeling of love in this thread as I do? It's infectious.

In any case, I truly hope this will not turn out to be some gigantic thread about how catholicism is heretical, unbiblical, paganistic, basically anything but christian. I've heard it all, some of it I've argued (successfully or otherwise) and frankly have neither the time nor the inclination nor enough acumen, for that matter, to do it all over again. I am not a theologian, linguist, grammar or hermeneutics expert. I do not read Greek nor do I understand Hebrew. I am a simple man who believes God sent his only son to die for us and was resurrected on the 3rd day, period. Anything else is simply unimportant. (how's that for a preamble? )

Having said all of that, I will address the second post first, that of Turgonian and papal infallibility.

(Entire new doctrines...like papal infallibility? But I'll let Byblos answer Jac's question...)

If you want to truly understand the issue better, you should really go to the source, find out what they say about it, then disagree with it. I really don't know who http://www.chirstiantruth.com is, what their motivations are or who funds them. Here's a link that explains papal infallibility from a catholic perspective.

Let me just tell you from my own perspective how I see it. Since the reformation 500 years ago, protestants have been claiming inspiration by the Holy Spirit when reading and interpreting scripture. Yet there are no less than 20,000 denominations that sprung up since, some very similar, yet some others fundamentally different (as in Calvinism & Arminianism). If individuals can make such a claim, why do you deny it to an organization that can trace its existence, even its mandate, back to Christ?

The misconception is that Infallibility is the same as impeccability, it is not. The pope (current and previous) are fallible, errant men. They sin, they go to confession. The claim of infallibility is attributed to the pope, when speaking ex cathedra, or to the bishops when in eceumenical council, is an attribute given by inspiration of none other than the Holy Spirit, precisely because it was instituted by Christ unto Peter as such. Infallibility is also applicable to the church in its totality. This means if the church (and by extension the popes) makes mistakes, it is capable of self-correction over time, under the constant guidance and inspiration of the Holy Spirit. That's why for 2,000 years it is still one church and not split 20,000 ways. Where do you see the reformation denominations 1,500 years from now when they're as old as the catholic church today, if the current trend continues?

That's what I have to say about papal infallibility and will say no more.




Jac, I'm having a deja vu here. Didn't we address these very points in another thread? I did do a search but wasn't able to find them. Anyway, here's my take (yet again, I think).

This is for Byblos, especially, being our resident Catholic

I was doing a bit of reading on the Council of Trent, and I noticed several decrees that struck me as "popular Catholicism" (you know - the stereotypical ideas about Catholicism that almost every Protestant/non-Catholic is taught from youth up). These peaked my interest the most:

• Canons on Justification
  If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone, meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification, and that it is not in any way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the action of his own will, let him be anathema. (Canon 9).

What exactly did you understand the above to mean Jac? If it were PL objecting to it I wouldn't be, but you, I am surprised. Notice the highlighted Jac, all this is saying is that we are required to cooperate which means we have to believe, and unless we believe out of our own free will, then we cannot obtain justification. Do you object to that?

If anyone says that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in divine mercy, which remits sins for Christ's sake, or that it is this confidence alone that justifies us, let him be anathema (Canon 12).

This is emphasizing the same point. That justifying faith must be coupled with the will to believe.

If anyone says that man is absolved from his sins and justified because he firmly believes that he is absolved and justified, or that no one is truly justified except him who believes himself justified, and that by this faith alone absolution and justification are effected, let him be anathema. (Canon 14)

If anyone says that the justice received is not preserved and also not increased before God through good works, but that those works are merely the fruits and signs of justification obtained, but not the cause of its increase, let him be anathema (Canon 24).

Now these two, if you (Jac and the FG camp) might have an issue with I understand. What this is saying is that, because of the catholic belief that one can lose his faith (through mortal sin), they may need repentance to preserve it or restore it. Now we've discussed at length these 2 issues and I've spelled out exactly how I see it reconciled with OSAS (but not necessarily with FG), and that being that assurance of salvation is absolute when viewed objectively. But looking inward, one at times might have doubts of that assurance and would need repentance to restore their faith in that unchanging, objective assurance. It depends on how you look at it, see?

Canon on Baptism
If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation, let him be anathema (Canon 5).[/list]

I also understand your (FG) objection to baptism. But many protestant denominations practice it (albeit for adults but that's a semantic point). Since it's not indigenous to catholicism, I see no issue with it. Besides, baptism is an expression of the faith and not a work. Much like a person confessing Jesus Christ to be their Lord and Saviour then reciting the sinner's prayer, is that a work?

I guess I have two major questions. First, in general, how does this fit with the papal quote you referenced in our previous discussion that salvation was through faith alone,

It fits perfectly.

and second, what is the Catholic concept of anathema? I looked it up on Wikipedia (not exactly the authority, I know, but if it's wrong, you could actually be the one to correct it ):

After the time of the apostolic church, the term anathema has come to mean a form of extreme religious sanction beyond excommunication. The earliest recorded instance of the form is in the Council of Elvira (c. 306), and thereafter it became the common method of cutting off heretics. Cyril of Alexandria issued twelve anathemas against Nestorius in 431. In the fifth century, a formal distinction between anathema and excommunication evolved, where excommunication entailed cutting off a person or group from the rite of eucharist and attendance at worship, while anathema meant a complete separation of the subject from the Body of Christ. While excommunication can be announced by a simple edict or papal bull, the Roman Catholic Church has a particular ceremony necessary for anathema, where a bishop clad in purple (the liturgical color of penitence) is required, and he is surrounded by twelve priests with lighted candles. As the sentence is uttered, the priests cast their lighted candles on the ground, to symbolize the exclusion of the anathematized group from the house of Israel.

Although anathema is the highest sanction of the church, it is usually pronounced in the form, "If anyone holds that..., anathema sit". (Let him be anathema.) Thus, the person as a person is rarely given to anathema, and a person can renounce the anathematized beliefs and be reconciled to the church.

Where would you recommend I go to get some more information on this? I could always wade through the millions of Catholic apologists, but if you had something in mind, it would make life much easier! Obviously, there has to be some sort of reconciliation to these ideas . . . one thing you can't fault Catholics for (it seems to me in my research so far) is shoddy historical precedent. I get the impression that they expand on what has already been said, moreso than introduce entire new doctrines. Thus, the question.

Thanks much,

God bless

That's pretty much what anathema is, a reprimand short of excommunication.

The following link attempts to explain the difference between the catholic and protestant doctrine of justification and explains why they're really not all that different. It's short and worth the time to read.

http://www.saintaquinas.com/Justification_by_Grace.html

I believe it was written by a reformist but I'm not sure.

I tried to answer your questions to the best of my limited abilities Jac. Sorry if they're not to your satisfaction; they are to mine.


Edit: This is the link I meant to post (although the above one is a good source for an explanation of the catholic doctrine of justification as well).

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articl ... p0027.html

While I'm at it, the below link is to the catholic catechism and what it has to say about justification (and salvation by faith).

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c3a2.htm

Here's a quote (note the emphasis):

CHAPTER THREE
GOD'S SALVATION: LAW AND GRACE

ARTICLE 2
GRACE AND JUSTIFICATION

I. JUSTIFICATION

1987 The grace of the Holy Spirit has the power to justify us, that is, to cleanse us from our sins and to communicate to us "the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ" and through Baptism:34

But if we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him. For we know that Christ being raised from the dead will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him. The death he died he died to sin, once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God. So you also must consider yourselves as dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus.35

1988 Through the power of the Holy Spirit we take part in Christ's Passion by dying to sin, and in his Resurrection by being born to a new life; we are members of his Body which is the Church, branches grafted onto the vine which is himself:36

[God] gave himself to us through his Spirit. By the participation of the Spirit, we become communicants in the divine nature. . . . For this reason, those in whom the Spirit dwells are divinized.37

1989 The first work of the grace of the Holy Spirit is conversion, effecting justification in accordance with Jesus' proclamation at the beginning of the Gospel: "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand."38 Moved by grace, man turns toward God and away from sin, thus accepting forgiveness and righteousness from on high. "Justification is not only the remission of sins, but also the sanctification and renewal of the interior man.39

1990 Justification detaches man from sin which contradicts the love of God, and purifies his heart of sin. Justification follows upon God's merciful initiative of offering forgiveness. It reconciles man with God. It frees from the enslavement to sin, and it heals.

1991 Justification is at the same time the acceptance of God's righteousness through faith in Jesus Christ. Righteousness (or "justice") here means the rectitude of divine love. With justification, faith, hope, and charity are poured into our hearts, and obedience to the divine will is granted us.

1992 Justification has been merited for us by the Passion of Christ who offered himself on the cross as a living victim, holy and pleasing to God, and whose blood has become the instrument of atonement for the sins of all men. Justification is conferred in Baptism, the sacrament of faith. It conforms us to the righteousness of God, who makes us inwardly just by the power of his mercy. Its purpose is the glory of God and of Christ, and the gift of eternal life:40

But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from law, although the law and the prophets bear witness to it, the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, they are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as an expiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins; it was to prove at the present time that he himself is righteous and that he justifies him who has faith in Jesus.41

1993 Justification establishes cooperation between God's grace and man's freedom. On man's part it is expressed by the assent of faith to the Word of God, which invites him to conversion, and in the cooperation of charity with the prompting of the Holy Spirit who precedes and preserves his assent:

When God touches man's heart through the illumination of the Holy Spirit, man himself is not inactive while receiving that inspiration, since he could reject it; and yet, without God's grace, he cannot by his own free will move himself toward justice in God's sight.42

1994 Justification is the most excellent work of God's love made manifest in Christ Jesus and granted by the Holy Spirit. It is the opinion of St. Augustine that "the justification of the wicked is a greater work than the creation of heaven and earth," because "heaven and earth will pass away but the salvation and justification of the elect . . . will not pass away."43 He holds also that the justification of sinners surpasses the creation of the angels in justice, in that it bears witness to a greater mercy.

1995 The Holy Spirit is the master of the interior life. By giving birth to the "inner man,"44 justification entails the sanctification of his whole being:

Just as you once yielded your members to impurity and to greater and greater iniquity, so now yield your members to righteousness for sanctification. . . . But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the return you get is sanctification and its end, eternal life.45

In Christ,

John

[Jac3510]

Does everyone share the feeling of love in this thread as I do? It's infectious.

For the record, John, I have been putting off making this thread for some time. The reason is that I don't want you, or anybody else, to get the impression that I am anti-Catholic. To me, it is an offensive position. What I am is pro-Gospel, and if a church or denomination supports the Gospel, then I'm all up for further discussion. I tried to be very careful in my wording. You have stated that the Catholic church teaches salvation (or at least justification) by grace through faith alone, and further that one cannot lose this salvation. Apart from an in depth conversation, you can see how a person may take these decrees by the counsel as contradictory to that idea. As you yourself said, it depends on how you look at it. Thus, my question: how are we to look at it?

I would ask you not to read my words as if I were writing to attack or prove Catholicism wrong. It is possible to make a genuine inquiry on matters pertaining to the Gospel without assuming on the front end the results.

So, before I get to your responses on the cannons provided, I would like to deal with Turgonian's question:

(Entire new doctrines...like papal infallibility? But I'll let Byblos answer Jac's question...)

You didn't read me right, Turgonian. Now, of course in the Protestant interpretation of the Bible, papal infallibility is a "new" doctrine. BUT, notice carefully my words:

one thing you can't fault Catholics for (it seems to me in my research so far) is shoddy historical precedent. I get the impression that they expand on what has already been said, moreso than introduce entire new doctrines.

I hope you realize that there is a LOT of historical precedent for papal infallibility. They simply dogmatized what the Church basically already believed. I happen to think they were wrong. But, there is also a lot of precedent for the necessity of baptism in washing away sins, for sacramental grace, etc. Note, Turgonian, that I did not say that Catholics have never introduced extra-biblical doctrines. I said they did not invent new ones. Given their position on interpretation, I am exactly right. If you are going to question the denomination, you have to question it on their presuppositions rather than your own.

Now, Byblos:

Jac, I'm having a deja vu here. Didn't we address these very points in another thread? I did do a search but wasn't able to find them. Anyway, here's my take (yet again, I think).

Uhm . . . I don't think so. I know we discussed salvation by faith alone, thus my mention of your papal quote. But I don't think we've ever mentioned Trent.

What exactly did you understand the above to mean Jac? If it were PL objecting to it I wouldn't be, but you, I am surprised. Notice the highlighted Jac, all this is saying is that we are required to cooperate which means we have to believe, and unless we believe out of our own free will, then we cannot obtain justification. Do you object to that?

I take/took this to be that more than faith was necessary. Allow me to examine htis more closely:

• If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone, meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification,

OK . . . "faith alone" is defined as meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate - only faith is required to cooperate. So, let's rephrase it this way so far:

• If anyone says that the sinner is justified by nothing more than faith's cooperate to obtain the grace of justification, and that it is not in any way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the action of his own will, let him be anathema.

The "and" statement further clarifies. Whereas "meaning that" defined "faith alone" in the cannon, "and that it is not in any way necessary" sets up a contrast. So, it seems to me that the cannon says that in order to be saved, one must have faith, and one must also exercise his own will. Thus, we ask, "exercise his own will to what?" You may answer by saying, "The cannon is talking about exercising your will to believe," but it seems that answer is excluded by the cannon itself. They used "faith alone" themselves. How is this cannon understanding "faith"? Is "faith" not the act of trusting Christ? Is "faith" not already an exercise of the will? But if an exercise of the will is ALSO required with faith, then faith itself is not the act of believing.

I assumed, perhaps wrongly, that the exercise of the will related to the submission to the sacraments. The church holds to sacramental grace. That is, the saving grace of Christ is bestowed on a person THROUGH the sacraments. That's why interdicts were so painful.

So, to answer your question again, I took the cannon to mean that we must exercise faith, but we must also be willing to submit to the Church, and anyone who does not believe as such is damned.

This is emphasizing the same point. That justifying faith must be coupled with the will to believe.

I am not sure how "the will to believe" is different from "confidence in divine mercy." This cannon seems, to me, to be a direct attack on Calvin's definition of saving faith. He stated, rightly, that saving faith was knowing that Christ has saved me. It is exactly confidence in divine mercy. This is just what Luther asserted, that saving faith grasps the promise of mercy and knows it to be true. Therefore, it seems to me this cannon is saying that something more than faith is necessary.

Now these two, if you (Jac and the FG camp) might have an issue with I understand. What this is saying is that, because of the catholic belief that one can lose his faith (through mortal sin), they may need repentance to preserve it or restore it. Now we've discussed at length these 2 issues and I've spelled out exactly how I see it reconciled with OSAS (but not necessarily with FG), and that being that assurance of salvation is absolute when viewed objectively. But looking inward, one at times might have doubts of that assurance and would need repentance to restore their faith in that unchanging, objective assurance. It depends on how you look at it, see?

But Byblos, doesn't this say that works are the CAUSE of the increase in justification. It further rejects the idea that the only ones saved are those who have firmly believed ("no one is truly justified except him who believes himself justified, and that by this faith alone absolution and justification are effected"). This doesn't have any bearing on assurance or its loss. Even if FG, I can lose my assurance. That doesn't mean I lose my salvation. I can lose my assurance if I stop believing the Bible. But these cannons don't say that assurance of justification may be lost . . . they say that if I argue that works do not increase justification, and if I argue that justification comes only by faith alone, then I am damned. I don't see how this fits with sola fide.

I also understand your (FG) objection to baptism. But many protestant denominations practice it (albeit for adults but that's a semantic point). Since it's not indigenous to catholicism, I see no issue with it. Besides, baptism is an expression of the faith and not a work. Much like a person confessing Jesus Christ to be their Lord and Saviour then reciting the sinner's prayer, is that a work?

1) So are you saying that baptism is necessary for salvation?
2) I argue that baptism, prayer, and confession are all works, yes. I am not saved by praying the Lord's prayer. I am not saved by baptism. I am not saved by confession of Jesus. I am saved by believing His promise for everlasting life (faith in Him), and by that ALONE. If I think that any of the other three things are necessary, then I have believed in a works based salvation.

As far "anathema," how does this fit with OSAS? Isn't it true that salvation is only to those in the Church? And yet, if this strong from of excommunication is supposed to separate you from the Church, does that not separate you from salvation? Again, going back to the interdict, was that not the implication? If you do not receive the sacraments, you do not receive the grace necessary to be saved. What, then, do these cannons mean for those "anathema"? Clearly, according Trent, I am "anathema," if for no other reason than I believe that baptism is not necessary. Have I been then damned? If not, what does that mean, so far as the Catholic church is concerned?

Again, I am not trying to build a case necessarily against Catholicism. I am trying to understand how the positions are reconciled.

Thanks much,

God bless

[Gman]

Oh not this one again... May the God of the universe have mercy on our souls...

[Jac3510]

Oh not this one again... May the God of the universe have mercy on our souls...

I'm really not sure where we've gone through this before?

If this thread develops any anti-Catholic trends, I'll have it deleted. In the meantime, I'm trying to see how this fits. Something tells me this thread won't last long . . . :p

[Gman]

Sorry there Jac, I didn't mean to be a party pooper... I did find this one in a discussion once with John on the Council of Trent before. Maybe not exactly as you put it...

http://discussions.godandscience.org/ab ... sc-15.html

Sorry to bring up the past.. And yes if it brings up harsh feelings let's stop.

G -

[Jac3510]

Ah - so you are right, Gman. I didn't see that part of the thread, and I didn't remember the discussion. My fault. I don't suppose we are able to delete our own threads . . . if one of the mods wants to take this down, feel free. Byblos - you can have the honors

[FFC]

Ah - so you are right, Gman. I didn't see that part of the thread, and I didn't remember the discussion. My fault. I don't suppose we are able to delete our own threads . . . if one of the mods wants to take this down, feel free. Byblos - you can have the honors

Well it's not like a lot of other issues are not hashed and re-hashed.

[Byblos]

Sorry there Jac, I didn't mean to be a party pooper... I did find this one in a discussion once with John on the Council of Trent before. Maybe not exactly as you put it...

http://discussions.godandscience.org/ab ... sc-15.html

Sorry to bring up the past.. And yes if it brings up harsh feelings let's stop.

G -

Ah, that's the one I was looking for and couldn't find. Thanks Gman. I wasn't sure if it was a discussion with Jac or someone else. (I knew I wasn't going crazy, not yet at least).

Ah - so you are right, Gman. I didn't see that part of the thread, and I didn't remember the discussion. My fault. I don't suppose we are able to delete our own threads . . . if one of the mods wants to take this down, feel free. Byblos - you can have the honors

Jac,

There's really no need to stop the discussion or delete any posts. There certainly is no hard feelings on my part and I do not question your motives in the least. However, what I wanted to make clear from the start is that I am not adequately equipped to go into the details of such a discussion. I can tell you how I see things and how I, personally, understand and reconcile seemingly irreconcilable issues. I read scripture as well as the catholic catechism (though not the council of Trent). Then I listen to your (non-catholics) viewpoints and try to find similarities in what I've read. It might be a sophomoric way of understanding things but quite frankly that's the only thing my time affords me.

To answer some of your questions, yes, we believe baptism is necessary to receive justification and sanctification. And yes, we believe in infant baptism due to the parents' faith. We do not believe that to be a work but a simple expression of the faith. Now is baptism the ONLY way to be justified and sanctified? Of course not. The church believes non-catholics, even non-christians (in very extreme cases) can obtain eternal life. So to say that you're not saved because you're not baptised is not true (Trent notwithstanding ).

The way I see it, one of the major differences between catholicism and the reformation is no longer salvation by faith or by faith and works, as that, in my view, has already been settled (though maybe not to your satisfaction). The major difference is OSAS or not. And that discussion we went through in depth already and I've laid out my viewpoint and how I see it reconciled. In any case, for the vast majority of Christians, belief in OSAS or not, is not a matter of salvation and I agree. You may not because of the issue of absolute assurance. But even that, I've stated my opinion and how it reconciles to that as well.

God bless,

John.

[Canuckster1127]

It's only fair to point out that many elements for which Catholicism are criticized today in some circles are still found in full, or to significant degree within so-called protestant churches today as well.

Much of the reformation was not as simple as pure doctrinal differences. There was a significant degree of straight social reform with the casting off off an independent political power in favor of nationalized Churches that would work in conjunction with state goals, not the least of which was the reclaiming of previously syphoned off wealth.

Often the resultant shades of variation in Catholic doctrine to protestant practise were more or at least as much the result of maitaining familiar practise with a change in central authority and as such the doctrinal changes were made for practical consideration rather than doctrinal conviction.

I see this especially at work in elements of Infant Baptism and the Eucharist, but there are others as well.

All of this did not take place in the neat vacuum we sometimes attempt to portray it as.

[Turgonian]

You didn't read me right, Turgonian. Now, of course in the Protestant interpretation of the Bible, papal infallibility is a "new" doctrine. BUT, notice carefully my words:

one thing you can't fault Catholics for (it seems to me in my research so far) is shoddy historical precedent. I get the impression that they expand on what has already been said, moreso than introduce entire new doctrines.

I hope you realize that there is a LOT of historical precedent for papal infallibility. They simply dogmatized what the Church basically already believed. I happen to think they were wrong. But, there is also a lot of precedent for the necessity of baptism in washing away sins, for sacramental grace, etc. Note, Turgonian, that I did not say that Catholics have never introduced extra-biblical doctrines. I said they did not invent new ones. Given their position on interpretation, I am exactly right. If you are going to question the denomination, you have to question it on their presuppositions rather than your own.

OK, I won't pretend I know much about it. But according to the article I linked, a lot of patristics listed did not agree with the idea of papal infallibility.
But I'll shut my mouth before I put my foot in it. Please continue. * retreats *