About Papal infallibility

  • Thread starter Thread starter Benedicti
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Benedicti

Guest
Hello
I am confuse about something.
If the Pope is preserved from the possibility of error when he declares or promulgates dogmatic teaching on faith or morals in the name of College of Bishops, why we don’t say that the College is infallible, not only the pope.
If the pope speak in the name of the Collage, the college is infallible, or not?
The pope can take Decisions outside, against, the will and decisions of the College? If he can, he is still infallible?
 
The Pope is head of the college of bishops and therfore speaks for them. A doctrine made by the college can only be made infallible if the Pope promulgates it. The reason why only the Pope is infallible and not the college of bishops is that only Peter was given the keys.

Matthew 16:19. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And
whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven:
and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in
heaven.

Peter and his successors are infallible because he was able to receive a Divine revelation by God and proclaim it

Matthew 16:16. Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the
living God.

Jesus then indicated that it was not Peter speaking but it was the Father speaking through Peter

Matthew 16:17. And Jesus answering said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon
Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my
Father who is in heaven.

The Father obviosly can not teach error and he speaks through Peter and his successors.

This forms the basis of Papal Infallibility

May the peace of the Lord be with you
Jason
 
Actually there is a lot of misconception out there.

The promulgation of the dogma of papal infallability is an newer exhibition of the same opriginal deposit of faith. The dogma itself is thus founded on the OLDER teaching of **The Church **being infallable.

The Bishops speaking in unity of consent on a matter are also speaking infallability. This was in fact the original belief of the Church and always has been. Since the pope is in union with the bishops and vice versa it was a simple matter of logic to arrive at papal infallability.

Since Christ said the gates of hell would not prevail against **his Church (Matt. 16:18b), this means that his Church **can never pass out of existence. But if the Church ever apostasized by teaching heresy, then it would cease to exist; because it would cease to be Jesus’ Church. Thus the Church cannot teach heresy, meaning that anything it solemnly defines for the faithful to believe is true. This same reality is reflected in the Apostle Paul’s statement that the Church is “the pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15). If the Church is the foundation of religious truth in this world, then it is God’s own spokesman. As Christ told his disciples: “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me” (Luke 10:16).

That the Church is infallible in her definitions on faith and morals is itself a Catholic dogma, which, although it was formulated ecumenically for the first time in the Vatican Council, had been explicitly taught long before and had been assumed from the very beginning without question down to the time of the Protestant Reformation.

more: newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm

James
 
jayk15 said:
The Pope is head of the college of bishops and therfore speaks for them. A doctrine made by the college can only be made infallible if the Pope promulgates it. The reason why only the Pope is infallible and not the college of bishops is that only Peter was given the keys.

Matthew 16:19. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And
whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven:
and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in
heaven.

Peter and his successors are infallible because he was able to receive a Divine revelation by God and proclaim it

Matthew 16:16. Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the
living God.

Jesus then indicated that it was not Peter speaking but it was the Father speaking through Peter

Matthew 16:17. And Jesus answering said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon
Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my
Father who is in heaven.

The Father obviosly can not teach error and **he speaks through Peter **and his successors.

This forms the basis of Papal Infallibility

May the peace of the Lord be with you
Jason
Click to expand...
The Papacy is a choppy argument to begin with, let alone Papal infallibility. There is a huge epistempic leap from Peter being the keeper of the keys to Apostolic Succession. And if God being unable to teach error (through Peter) is an argument for Papal infallibility, did Peter err when he denied Christ? Did Peter err when Satan had influenced his thoughts in the direction of that which was “a stumbling block” to Jesus? Furthermore, if the Pope was infallible, why were there such terrible Pope’s throughout history?
 
Benedicti said:
Hello
I am confuse about something.
If the Pope is preserved from the possibility of error when he declares or promulgates dogmatic teaching on faith or morals in the name of College of Bishops, why we don’t say that the College is infallible, not only the pope.
If the pope speak in the name of the Collage, the college is infallible, or not?
The pope can take Decisions outside, against, the will and decisions of the College? If he can, he is still infallible?
Click to expand...
The Pope is the head of the Church on earth, meaning that he has more authority than the Bishops and Cardinals. The Bishops are infallible when they are united to the Pope. This only applies in matters of faith and morals, of course.
 
In history, there has not been one Pope who has made an error in matters of faith and morals. That is a fact.

Peter committed personals sins, as do we all, however, when he committed these sins he was not defining any matter concerning faith, morals, or doctrine. Hence, no breach in the infallibility of the Papacy.

🤷
 
From the link provided:

Newman and other commentators have noted that Honorius’ letters to Sergius are not doctrinal definitions ex cathedra; thus they are outside the scope of infallibility defined by the First Vatican Council.

It was pronouncement by a sitting Pope on a matter of faith. You could respond that it wasn’t a public one, being only a letter to Sergius.

But then, if it was a private letter, why did it lead to such public problems.

"The creeds [of the earlier Ecumenical Synods] would have sufficed for knowledge and confirmation of the orthodox faith. Because, however, the originator of all evil still always finds a helping serpent, by which he may diffuse his poison, and therewith finds fit tools for his will, we mean Theodore of Pharan, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul, Peter, former bishops of Constantinople, also Honorius, Pope of Old Rome, Cyrus of Alexandria, etc., so he failed not, by them,** to cause trouble in the Church by the scattering of the heretical doctrine **of one will and one energy of the two natures of the one Christ.
 
Primox said:
The Papacy is a choppy argument to begin with, let alone Papal infallibility. There is a huge epistempic leap from Peter being the keeper of the keys to Apostolic Succession. And if God being unable to teach error (through Peter) is an argument for Papal infallibility, did Peter err when he denied Christ? Did Peter err when Satan had influenced his thoughts in the direction of that which was “a stumbling block” to Jesus? Furthermore, if the Pope was infallible, why were there such terrible Pope’s throughout history?
Click to expand...
The very promise Jesus made to Peter, “whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven,” (Mt 16:19) requires that Peter be infallible while teaching. If he were not, then God would have put himself in the inconceivable scenario of having to bind and affirm untruths. So, unless Peter was divinely protected, God either had to affirm lies, an impossibility, or God would fail to honor his promise, also an impossibility. Peter, yes, sinned as we all do. Infallibility is not impeccability. Popes can sin, but they cannot teach in error when it comes to faith or morals.
 
Update

I missed some stuff on that page, I’m re-reading now.

That is true, but, even more to the point, a look at Honorius’ exact words shows that while he did use a formula–“one will”–that was later declared heretical, he used it in a sense that implied the orthodox belief.
…
The Third Council of Constantinople was thus in error when it condemned Honorius for heresy. But a Council, of course, has no authority except insofar as its decrees are confirmed by the pope. The reigning Pontiff, Leo II, did not agree to the condemnation of his predecessor for heresy; he said Honorius should be condemned because “he permitted the immaculate faith to be subverted.” [Carroll, 254]

From NewAdvent.org

Finally, papal approbation is required to give ecumenical value and authority to conciliar decrees, and this must be subsequent to conciliar action, unless the pope, by his personal presence and conscience, has already given his official ratification (for details see GENERAL COUNCILS).
…
The chief event of Agatho’s pontificate is, however the Sixth Ecumenical Council, held at Constantinople in 680, at which the papal legates presided and which practically ended the Monothelite heresy. Before the decrees of the council arrived in Rome for the approval of the pope, Agatho had died.

I stand corrected in this matter.
 
phoenix3212 said:
The very promise Jesus made to Peter, “whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven,” (Mt 16:19) requires that Peter be infallible while teaching. If he were not, then God would have put himself in the inconceivable scenario of having to bind and affirm untruths. So, unless Peter was divinely protected, God either had to affirm lies, an impossibility, or God would fail to honor his promise, also an impossibility. Peter, yes, sinned as we all do. Infallibility is not impeccability. Popes can sin, but they cannot teach in error when it comes to faith or morals.
Click to expand...
All justification to suit error. There are more ways to bind untruths on earth than just teaching. When there is a terrible Pope, I may have learned to be a terrible Christian. We wouldn’t expect men with the keys to bind in heaven what they have power to bind on earth to grieve the Lord such as they do. If it is an impossibility for God to affirm lies or break promises, then why is it possible under Papal distress (the torture – I’m not really sure what the cases are – of Liberius and Vigilius). We must then accept the claim that God affirms lies and breaks promises when documents aren’t going to be made wholly public (as with Honorius). It’s foolishness. Let’s add condition after condition until Papal authority is restored.
 
capablanca911 said:
Update

I missed some stuff on that page, I’m re-reading now.

That is true, but, even more to the point, a look at Honorius’ exact words shows that while he did use a formula–“one will”–that was later declared heretical, he used it in a sense that implied the orthodox belief.
…
The Third Council of Constantinople was thus in error when it condemned Honorius for heresy. But a Council, of course, has no authority except insofar as its decrees are confirmed by the pope. The reigning Pontiff, Leo II, did not agree to the condemnation of his predecessor for heresy; he said Honorius should be condemned because “he permitted the immaculate faith to be subverted.” [Carroll, 254]

From NewAdvent.org

Finally, papal approbation is required to give ecumenical value and authority to conciliar decrees, and this must be subsequent to conciliar action, unless the pope, by his personal presence and conscience, has already given his official ratification (for details see GENERAL COUNCILS).
…
The chief event of Agatho’s pontificate is, however the Sixth Ecumenical Council, held at Constantinople in 680, at which the papal legates presided and which practically ended the Monothelite heresy. Before the decrees of the council arrived in Rome for the approval of the pope, Agatho had died.

I stand corrected in this matter.
Click to expand...
A refreshing attitude. You might also want to read this article on St. Maximus, that deals a little bit with the Honorius issue.

newadvent.org/cathen/10078b.htm
 
Primox said:
All justification to suit error. There are more ways to bind untruths on earth than just teaching. When there is a terrible Pope, I may have learned to be a terrible Christian. We wouldn’t expect men with the keys to bind in heaven what they have power to bind on earth to grieve the Lord such as they do. If it is an impossibility for God to affirm lies or break promises, then why is it possible under Papal distress (the torture – I’m not really sure what the cases are – of Liberius and Vigilius).
Click to expand...
Primox, cynicism, especially when its directed at Christ’s teachings, His Church and His entrusted earthly ecclesial representatives is not a Christian virtue. You might want to try to get more objective here and set aside your bias against Catholics; both are showing glaringly here friend. 😉

What you say about teaching by example has some merit but in truth very few Christians are in the papal presence on a day to day basis. So even if we had a particularly bad pope who had serious personal vices then it is most often the case that only his aides and those in regular audience would see this. And let’s be honest here too. Those that are around and near a pope are all mostly of the cardinal, bishop or senior priest or brother level and already quite mature in their own faith. True, a publicly exposed scandal could cause havoc – causing some to loose faith. And this has no doubt happened in the middle ages a few times and contributed to some of the under currents that fed the Protestant rebellion. This is all sad and while men are human and prone to sin these things will happen from time to time. In fact the bible gives accounts of various scandals - recall the story of the traitor Judas. This was a supreme first order scandal - an apostle of Jesus accepting a bride to assist in the murder of the Son of God. Can you even imagine who outraged the apostles were and how betrayed they felt? We will never know how many early Christians despaired over Christ’s betrayal and His death and lost interest in Christianity - even after the accounts of the resurrection. It is not for us to judge these matters.

You confused me on the point you were trying to make on “papal distress”. What do you mean? Can you elaborate? No pope has ever changed church teaching under duress.
Primox said:
We must then accept the claim that God affirms lies and breaks promises when documents aren’t going to be made wholly public (as with Honorius). It’s foolishness. Let’s add condition after condition until Papal authority is restored.
Click to expand...
Huh? What are you saying here? Are you saying that the Vatican is “hiding” information that discredits Honorius further? Where do you get this information? Is this hearsay or speculation? Who told you this? Can you point to any credible references?

I think non-Catholics make much ado over nothing on the matter of ecclesial (what you call papal) authority. What has changed since the time of Christ? The Apostles as first bishops ALWAYS had their divinely given authority and so has the head apostle who today we call the pope. We don’t need to restore something that was never lost. The Protestant Rebellion certainly did not change any apostolic authority and in fact it was what condemned them and anathamatized the heretics. That binding to anathema is grave and it is a very real authority. Any heretic so anathamatized (bound to his sins on earth) and going to his grave impenitent and not recanting his false teachings is most likely in hell because of that apostolic authority.

James
 
First, I have to image that the Papacy is central to Christ’s teachings to be guilty of cynicism towards it.
Second, I was responding to Phoenix3212’s strain of argument which is essentially:
phoenix3212 said:
1)Whatever Peter binds on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever Peter looses on earth will be loosed in heaven
2)Peter must be infallible while teaching.
3) If Peter was not infallible while teaching, then God would have put himself in the inconceivable scenario of having to bind and affirm untruths or break promises
4)God does not break affirm untruths or break promises
5) Through apostolic succession, Pope’s cannot err.
Click to expand...
My argument is as follows (IF P, THEN Q, NOT Q, NOT P):
IF P, THEN Q (if God bestows infallibility through apostolic succession, Pope’s can’t err in the faith or teaching)
NOT Q (Pope’s, following Peter, have erred in the faith or teaching)
NOT P (God does not bestow infallibly through apostolic succession)

catholic.com/thisrock/1994/9409fea2.asp
The article that was posted for your reading pleasure
Three names, though, kept popping up in all the sources, whether Protestant, Orthodox, or liberal Catholic: Liberius (352-366), Vigilius (537-555), and Honorius. I disposed of the first two quickly. They had been made to sign questionable statements of faith while under duress. That doesn’t count: Papal infallibility applies only to free acts of the pope, not to acts under torture. No contract signed under duress is binding; thus Liberius and Vigilius, whatever their failings, were excused.
Click to expand...
Circumstances including duress do not break God’s promises or cause him to affirm untruths. This doesn’t fit the with the strain of argument which I addressed.
Newman and other commentators have noted that Honorius’ letters to Sergius are not doctrinal definitions ex cathedra; thus they are outside the scope of infallibility defined by the First Vatican Council.
Click to expand...
Outside the scope of infallibility by the gauge of those who promote it.

These are the conditions I’m talking about, and you can draw as many from a hat as you wish.
Only his aids see this
It doesn’t matter if it’s bound in his sphere of cardinals, because they’re all seasoned theologians.
Honorius’ teachings were not bound in public because they were only contained within a letter

We can modify what we mean by loosed or bound until acceptance of the argument is restored to whom in may concern.
 
CentralFLJames said:
The Protestant Rebellion certainly did not change any apostolic authority and in fact it was what condemned them and anathamatized the heretics. That binding to anathema is grave and it is a very real authority. Any heretic so anathamatized (bound to his sins on earth) and going to his grave impenitent and not recanting his false teachings is most likely in hell because of that apostolic authority.
James
Click to expand...
How does that square with:

Baptism constitutes the foundation of communion among all Christians, including those who are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church: “For men who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in some, though imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church. Justified by faith in Baptism, [they] are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.”(CCC 1271)
 
capablanca911 said:
How does that square with:

Baptism constitutes the foundation of communion among all Christians, including those who are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church: “For men who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in some, though imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church. Justified by faith in Baptism, [they] are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.”(CCC 1271)
Click to expand...
There is not contradiction here. One is not a “heretic” unless one is in The Church to start with then rejects the Church after having embraced heretical teachings and tried to promulgate these errors among others in The Church.

Protestants today are generationally distant from the original Catholic heretics who started the new Protestant-Christianity with new teachings that no apostle ever taught. These men were rightly anathematized and will bear the full consequence of rebellion for eternity if they didn’t repent before dieing. The Protestants today (who I call neo-Christians) are a new category all together than heretics and are very difficult to categorize theologically. Protestants on one hand have embraced heretical teachings but they are often “born into” these teachings and never knew the fullness of the true faith (Catholicism). These are SEVERELY disadvantaged by this.but are not held bound to the curse of anathema since anathemas only apply to those FORMAL MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH who have been formally charged and found guilty under cannon law. As it so happens the anathemas have had their legal penalty withdrawn and no longer in themselves bind a person to their judicial penalty - a curse and removal of blessings and benefits of the Church. In the case of Protestants you all believe in a HIGHLY deficient faith that puts you at considerable risk of damnation not for that belief but for being so vulnerable to inability to recover from a spiritual attack that one failed to overcome (eg. what sacrament of confession is all about). Some will make it but due to these severe defects of faith some will not make it without intercessions from the saints or God’s direct supernatural intervention with Mercy. But to be shown mercy one must also practice giving mercy - and “giving” is too “works” sounding for most Protestants and this works against one since Justice will overtake a person who has invalidated his eligibility for Mercy by being lazy to grace and not cooperating with it (the deadly aspect of “just believe” since it PRESUMES on God’s Mercy - which is itself a serious sin). Catholics believe that the fullness of the Catholic faith affords Catholics a HUGE advantage over non-Catholics since the sacramental grace is so accessible. But I digress from topic…

The point I would draw you to is that a foundation does NOT a complete structure make. We are all called to be living stones in the Church - which itself is the foundation and pillar of truth. Even among Catholics we will find a wide dichotomy of spirituality ranging from very simple faith and duty to God to that mature spirituality that is conjoined with a vigorous spiritual devotion, prayer life and highly developed moral conscience. I would assume that within Protestantism a similar dichotomy is present within any particular “faith community” and within the network of competing Protestants denominations. So the analogy I’d draw here is that Protestants are really just very poorly Catechized Catholics – but they just do not realize that they are in fact informal members of The Catholic Church and are in fact subject to the spiritual authority of the Holy See in Rome whether they realize it and like it or not.

The hope we Catholics all have of course is that Protestants (seen as poorly Catechized Catholics who were victims of incompetent teachers who taught them a deficient gospel) will eventually catch on that they need to step up to the full offering and dramatically increase their ability to attain salvation and eternal beatitude with God (the true objective).

James
 
Primox said:
The Papacy is a choppy argument to begin with, let alone Papal infallibility. There is a huge epistempic leap from Peter being the keeper of the keys to Apostolic Succession. And if God being unable to teach error (through Peter) is an argument for Papal infallibility, did Peter err when he denied Christ? Did Peter err when Satan had influenced his thoughts in the direction of that which was “a stumbling block” to Jesus? Furthermore, if the Pope was infallible, why were there such terrible Pope’s throughout history?
Click to expand...
The charism of infallibility by definition only applies when the Pope, as supreme leader of the Catholic Church teaches on a matter of faith or morals that is to be believed by the whole Catholic Church. Peter denying Christ or erring when he allowed Satan to influence his thoughts were not acts of teaching as the Church had not even been established yet. Jesus had to die & rise from the dead for the Church to be established.

Jesus never promised that all popes would be saintly & holy, he only promised the protection of the Holy Spirit to guide them in all truth, that is when they would teach they would not teach error. So we should expect that some popes, as it turns out seven or eight of them - out of approx. 263, would be bad. Just like there are some very bad tv preachers who have gone to jail.

But even the bad ones never taught one doctrine that was in error. Of course we often forget the good popes as in the first 33 out of 34 who were martyred and numerous others who suffered for Christ, including Pope John Paul II who was shot.
 
The hard nut for you Protestants to crack is that the Catholic Church has got an unbroken chain of succession from St Peter to our present Pope. St Peter is definitely the rock on which the Church is bulit on. Matthew 16:18 Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will buld my Church. The word Peter comes from the KOINE Greek word: Petros which literally means rock. In fact the word Petros is exactly the same to the word Aramaic word Cephas which means rock. Jesus called Peter: Cephas in John 1:42. And he brought him to Jesus. And Jesus looking upon him, said:

John 1:42 Thou art Simon the son of Jona. Thou shalt be called Cephas, which is
interpreted Peter.

Cephas is the Aramaic word: Rock
To argue that Peter can’t be the rock because he denied Jesus is irrelevant because after Peters denial, the crucifiction and resurrection, Peter repented and Jesus still charged him to look after his sheep

John 21:17. He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou
me? Peter was grieved because he had said to him the third time: Lovest
thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest
that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep.

The Pope is only infallible when he uses his Ex Cathedra Infalabillity on matters of faith and morals. To say that the Pope can err in his infalibillity is wrong because Jesus promised the gates of hell shall not prevail against his Church.

Matthew 16:18. And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will
build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

To say that the Pope can err in his Infallibility, the gates of hell would certainly have prevailed against the Church. But Jesus said the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. So by saying the gates of hell prevailed against the Church when the Popes err in their infalibillity you are calling Jesus a liar when he promised it wouldn’t.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top