An epistemological objection to papal infallibility

[twf]

The decisions of the Council of Nicea were just as true before the Pope agreed with them as they were after. They did not suddenly take on their infallible quality the moment the Pope said yes.

Catholics would agree with this. Please see my earlier post in this thread. At ecumenical councils the bishops as a whole collectively exercise the Church’s infallibility. This is clearly taught at Vatican II and in our catechism.

The magisterium is the pope and the bishops as a body, not the pope alone, but the pope’s ratification / acceptance of an ecumenical council is still necessary before we as Catholics can be certain that an ecumenical council did in fact occur.

 

[Peter_J]

As recent threads have shown, some Roman Catholics will argue that the RCC alone has a definite unshakeable authority (the papacy, along with councils in union with the papacy) to appeal to in matters of doctrine, as opposed to Protestant sola sciptura or Orthodox “receptionism”.

But then, don’t you believe that the Orthodox Church alone has a definite unshakeable authority?

Edit: Well, possibly you don’t; but then, I could equally point out that there are some Roman Catholics who don’t believe that the Catholic Church alone has a definite unshakeable authority.

 

[LionHeart777]

…

While religious assent is required to papal declarations which meet Vatican I’s criteria for infallibility, there is authority that in matters of fact, the most that can be given, and therefore the most that can be required from a believer, is belief with moral certainty. This is much lower standard than that required for religious assent. And it makes sense; not being omniscient, ordinary human beings cannot be expected to know matters of fact with absolute certainty, other than matters of fact which have become part of the faith (e.g. the Resurrection of Christ). Believe it or not, this was a matter of controversy in the RCC in the seventeenth century. No papal or conciliar definition on the matter was ever given, but there was a general consensus that matters of fact could not command absolute certainty, as makes sense. This is discussed in Owen Chadwick’s From Bossuet to Newman. Unfortunately I don’t have a copy handy, so I can’t give a page citation.

But the matter of the valid election of a pope is a matter of fact. As the papal selection process has developed, there must be an election of a pope by the college of cardinals, free of any coercion whether internal or external. Whether a given papal election is free of coercion is of course a matter of fact, and one which cannot be known with certainty outside the college of cardinals.

But, again, once a “pope” has been elected, his “infallible” proclamations must command religious assent, and herein lies the problem. To make an “infallible” proclamation somoeone must, of course, be the (one, true) pope, validly elected as such. But, as we have seen, the most that can be given to the issue of whether a putative pope has been validly elected is moral certainty. So if the infallibility of a statement depends on whether it is made by a validly elected pope, and the valid election of said putative pope is a matter only of moral certainty, it follows logically that the highest assent that can be required of an “infallible” papal declaration is moral certainty. But RCC teaching requires that such declarations receive an assent higher than moral certainty. A contradiction…

I am not very familiar with levels of assent, etc. but in 2 Catholic sources I have come across, the valid election of a Pope belongs to this category (the second of three):

“With regard to those truths connected to revelation by historical necessity and which are to be held definitively, but are not able to be declared as divinely revealed, the following examples can be given: the legitimacy of the election of the Supreme Pontiff or of the celebration of an ecumenical council, the canonizations of saints (dogmatic facts), the declaration of Pope Leo XIII in the Apostolic Letter Apostolicae Curae on the invalidity of Anglican ordinations …37”

Source: ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFADTU.HTM (emphasis mine)

This is what my source seems to say about the level of assent required of Catholics to items pertaining to the second category (in which the valid election of a Pope is to be found, according to the same source):

“8. With regard to the nature of the assent owed to the truths set forth by the Church as divinely revealed (those of the first paragraph) or to be held definitively (those of the second paragraph), it is important to emphasize that there is no difference with respect to the full and irrevocable character of the assent which is owed to these teachings. The difference concerns the supernatural virtue of faith: in the case of truths of the first paragraph, the assent is based directly on faith in the authority of the Word of God (doctrines de fide credenda); in the case of the truths of the second paragraph, the assent is based on faith in the Holy Spirit’s assistance to the Magisterium and on the Catholic doctrine of the infallibility of the Magisterium (doctrines de fide tenenda).”

Source: Ibid.

The valid election of a Pope is a dogmatic fact, as the above source mentions, which has been defined by another source as:

“A truth that, though not revealed by God, nevertheless comes under the infallible teaching authority of the Church. The reason for the Church’s competence over dogmatic facts is their close connection with revealed truths. If the Church did not have authority to teach such facts infallibly, the doctrines of revelation would be jeopardized. Examples of dogmatic facts are the valid election of a pope, the validity of an ecumenical council, and the actuality of a canonized saint’s presence in heaven.”

Source: catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=33188

 

[LionHeart777]

I said:

I am not very familiar with levels of assent, etc. but in 2 Catholic sources I have come across, the valid election of a Pope belongs to this category (the second of three):

According to one source, “A fourth category, ordinary prudential teaching on disciplinary matters, is commonly accepted by theologians and can be inferred from the text of Cardinal Ratzinger’s Donum Veritatis.[2]”

Source: catholicism.org/the-three-levels-of-magisterial-teaching.html

 

[Expatreprocedit]

All the bishops have never defined that the majority of bishops have infallible authority, therefore the orthodox have just as little absolute assurance of the councils they support as well. And how do they know that the bishops were free from all coercion? These questions cannot be known. Its just faith

No, the Orthodox do not have a cut and dried formula as to dogma. It must be proclaimed by a council, but whether that council is truly ecumenical and the status of its declarations are left to the sense of the faithful. It can be messy, but to me it’s preferable.

 

[greypiper]

I get the problem; actually, IIRC, this was one reason no one wanted to use some of the previous used pope and antipope names - there is still a great deal of confusion about which popes were popes and which were antipopes.

If I may say so, though, the seat of the Office of Peter is not merely a matter of moral certainty; it is a doctrine which we can know and which we must believe in. And there is evidence for that (the old verse, Matthew 16:18ff). Consider that only Simon is renamed. That ought to be a sign to anyone familiar with the patriarchs - Abra(ha)m, Jacob(Israel). A change of name is a change of status.

I think there were certain times when the right Pope could be a matter of question or confusion. But as a general principle, the Seat of Peter is a visible and knowable sign of unity - just as the Patriarch of Constantinople is for the Eastern Orthodox. Ours simply happens to be theological rather than merely practical.

The ultimate issue I had, which brought me back to Orthodoxy, is that even granting Peter the sort of primacy Rome claims for him, how do you then make the intellectual leap that he is succeeded only in the See of Rome? He was bishop at Jerusalem first, and then at Antioch. One would think that the Bishop of Jerusalem would hold the Chair of Peter, as “The First of the First.” Even beyond that, since this thread regards infallibility, Christ says to Peter that He will found His Church, and the Gates of Hell will not prevail against it: the charism of infallibility is granted to the Church Herself, not to a single man.

 

[cena]

The ultimate issue I had, which brought me back to Orthodoxy, is that even granting Peter the sort of primacy Rome claims for him, how do you then make the intellectual leap that he is succeeded only in the See of Rome? He was bishop at Jerusalem first, and then at Antioch. One would think that the Bishop of Jerusalem would hold the Chair of Peter, as “The First of the First.” Even beyond that, since this thread regards infallibility, Christ says to Peter that He will found His Church, and the Gates of Hell will not prevail against it: the charism of infallibility is granted to the Church Herself, not to a single man.

I hope this helps

ewtn.com/faith/teachings/papac2.htm

 

[Randy_Carson]

The ultimate issue I had, which brought me back to Orthodoxy, is that even granting Peter the sort of primacy Rome claims for him, how do you then make the intellectual leap that he is succeeded only in the See of Rome? He was bishop at Jerusalem first, and then at Antioch. One would think that the Bishop of Jerusalem would hold the Chair of Peter, as “The First of the First.” Even beyond that, since this thread regards infallibility, Christ says to Peter that He will found His Church, and the Gates of Hell will not prevail against it: the charism of infallibility is granted to the Church Herself, not to a single man.

The reason is actually fairly simple: Peter was Jesus’ Royal Steward; it did not matter where he was, the keys of that office went with him. Here is the basis for that:

Peter – The Royal Steward

1. Is Jesus a king?
2. Did He re-establish the office of the Royal Steward?

In ancient times, a king might choose a second in command (known as the royal steward or prime minister) who literally wore a large key as a symbol of his office and who spoke with the authority of the king. The prophet Isaiah confirms this:

Isaiah 22:20-22
"In that day I will summon my servant, Eliakim son of Hilkiah. I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.”

In the passage above, God is speaking to Shebnah, an unfaithful steward serving King Hezekiah. God is telling Shebnah that he is about to be replaced by Eliakim, and this confirms the existence of the office, the key worn as a symbol of the office, and the continuation of the office in perpetuity – despite the change of office holder. In other words, the office of the royal steward continued even when the man who held the office died or was replaced by someone else. God Himself passes the key from one steward to the next.

In the New Testament, we learn that Jesus inherits the throne of his father, David.

Luke 1:31–33
And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great, and will be called Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; and of his kingdom there will be no end.

We also read the following:

Matthew 16:13-19
When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?” Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

The passage quoted above from Matthew tells us that Jesus named Peter as His royal steward and gave him the “keys to the kingdom of heaven" as the symbol of his authority to speak in His name. Since Jesus is an eternal king, the office of royal steward in His kingdom will never end. Peter died as a martyr as Jesus foretold, but the successors of Peter have taken his place in the perpetual office that Jesus established in His royal court.

In addition to the reference to a key or keys, note the following parallels:

"What he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.” (Is. 22:22)
"Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” (Mt. 16:19)

Jesus specifically referenced the passage from Isaiah when He appointed Peter, and Peter received authority from Jesus to speak universally in His name. To do so faithfully, Peter must not teach error; therefore, Peter (and his successors who hold the office of the Royal Steward - also known as the Bishop of Rome) are protected by God through the charism of infallibility.

Therefore, if Jesus, our eternal king, established Peter as His first Royal Steward in a perpetual office, then despite the existence of other, lesser stewards (patriarchs who have their own legitimate areas of authority) don’t Peter’s successors, the Bishops of Rome, continue to serve in that office today?

 

[TarkanAttila]

But that doesn’t seem to solve the issue at hand. The matter of who is pope is seemingly something which can only be known with moral certainty, even if belief in the office of the papacy is a matter of religious assent.

I am not sure whether the matter of which person is the Pope of Rome is a matter of moral certainty. But I am sure that there must be a successor of Peter, who is not merely a figurehead, but who has the power to “bind and loose”, to open or close the gates of Heaven to whomever his Master has in mind. For Peter has “the keys” to the Kingdom.

In short, whatever else we may know or not, it is certain the office exists.

Similarly, it is certain there is such a thing as Scripture. But one might argue that we do not know what particular chapters and verses and words constitute it, and therefore all we really have is Tradition. Yet we do know there is Scripture.

The ultimate issue I had, which brought me back to Orthodoxy, is that even granting Peter the sort of primacy Rome claims for him, how do you then make the intellectual leap that he is succeeded only in the See of Rome?

The import of the See of Rome was known since Ante-Nicene Times. There are several examples of this in the writings of early Church fathers. See for yourself: scripturecatholic.com/primacy_of_peter.html#tradition_II

Particularly under “primacy of Peter’s Apostolic See”. Read the titles. Rome. Rome. Rome. Not Antioch. Not Jerusalem. Rome is given importance and weight among the Fathers I have not seen in the other apostolic sees.

Even beyond that, since this thread regards infallibility, Christ says to Peter that He will found His Church, and the Gates of Hell will not prevail against it: the charism of infallibility is granted to the Church Herself, not to a single man.

On whom does Our Lord found the Church? “Thou art Cephas, and on this cepha (rock) I will build My Church.” Surely the cornerstone, the foundation, is as sure as the whole Church? Do remember what happens to houses built on sand: “it fell, and great was the fall of it”.

 

[prodromos]

On whom does Our Lord found the Church? “Thou art Cephas, and on this cepha (rock) I will build My Church.” Surely the cornerstone, the foundation, is as sure as the whole Church?

Ephesians 2:20
Ye are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone,
Funny, Peter isn’t mentioned specifically here, and I think you will find he isn’t the cornerstone.
Revelation 21:9-14
Then came one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls full of the seven last plagues and spoke to me, saying, “Come, I will show you the Bride, the wife of the Lamb.” And he carried me away in the Spirit to a great, high mountain, and showed me the holy city Jerusalem coming down out of heaven from God, having the glory of God, its radiance like a most rare jewel, like a jasper, clear as crystal. It had a great, high wall, with twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels, and on the gates the names of the twelve tribes of the sons of Israel were inscribed— on the east three gates, on the north three gates, on the south three gates, and on the west three gates.** And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.**
Not mentioned specifically here either.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

But that doesn’t seem to solve the issue at hand. The matter of who is pope is seemingly something which can only be known with moral certainty, even if belief in the office of the papacy is a matter of religious assent.

I’m a Protestant convert to the Catholic Church, and I’m not an admirer of the “papal infallibility” doctrine, right or wrong. One of my reasons is that all it does is toss a huge spanner into the works for anyone who hopes the churches will unify at some stage.

Oh, don’t get me wrong - I think the Pope speaks with authority. That was affirmed when Christ set up the office with Peter as the first “pope”, stating quite clearly “What you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and what you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” Incidentally the fact Christ was indicating that there could be both “binding” and “loosing” indicates the church could change it’s mind, and at some stage declare a previously binding ruling to no longer be so.

As my old PROTESTANT pastor put it, Christ was giving His Church authority, and added, “What’s the use of having a church if you’re not going to give it any authority?”

But let’s consider the election of John Paul I, who, to quote Wikipedia 'reigned 26 August 1978 to his sudden death 33 days later."

That’s four weeks and five days.

Yet it took the conclave of Cardinals weeks of deliberation, and I assume they were guided by the Holy Spirit in doing so, and just four and a half weeks later, he died.

So either God didn’t know he was sick or would die (which would make God less than omnipotent) or the Cardinals picked the wrong man (which would cast doubt on their judgement in other matters, including advice to the Pope on matters ex-Cathedra), or he was murdered (but there was no evidence of that), or he did or failed to do something (which would cast doubt on Papal infallibility).

Whichever way you look at it, this particular and recent event doesn’t do much to confirm my faith in “Papal Infallibility”.

I’m also somewhat cynical about the circumstances in which it was brought in. The Papal States were under siege from outside forces, there was an ultra-Montanist culture in the Vatican at the time with an extreme aversion to what it called “Modernism”, a somewhat enforced attitude to getting the vote carried, and Vatican I was under so much pressure that a priest told me the first business of Vatican II was to close the minutes of Vatican I, since the Vatican I delegates were in such a hurry to clear out.

The Pope gets His authority from Christ’s declaration to Peter about binding and loosing as far as I’m concerned. And in the very next breath Peter was being rebuked by Christ with “Get behind me Satan…” Peter sure wasn’t infallible, and his infallibility was shouted loud and clear in the Gospels and even in Acts at one point. And that’s there for an important reason, in my humble opinion.

 

[JMM1957]

I’m a Protestant convert to the Catholic Church, and I’m not an admirer of the “papal infallibility” doctrine, right or wrong. One of my reasons is that all it does is toss a huge spanner into the works for anyone who hopes the churches will unify at some stage.

Oh, don’t get me wrong - I think the Pope speaks with authority. That was affirmed when Christ set up the office with Peter as the first “pope”, stating quite clearly “What you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and what you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” Incidentally the fact Christ was indicating that there could be both “binding” and “loosing” indicates the church could change it’s mind, and at some stage declare a previously binding ruling to no longer be so.

As my old PROTESTANT pastor put it, Christ was giving His Church authority, and added, “What’s the use of having a church if you’re not going to give it any authority?”

But let’s consider the election of John Paul I, who, to quote Wikipedia 'reigned 26 August 1978 to his sudden death 33 days later."

That’s four weeks and five days.

Yet it took the conclave of Cardinals weeks of deliberation, and I assume they were guided by the Holy Spirit in doing so, and just four and a half weeks later, he died.

So either God didn’t know he was sick or would die (which would make God less than omnipotent) or the Cardinals picked the wrong man (which would cast doubt on their judgement in other matters, including advice to the Pope on matters ex-Cathedra), or he was murdered (but there was no evidence of that), or he did or failed to do something (which would cast doubt on Papal infallibility).

Whichever way you look at it, this particular and recent event doesn’t do much to confirm my faith in “Papal Infallibility”.

I’m also somewhat cynical about the circumstances in which it was brought in. The Papal States were under siege from outside forces, there was an ultra-Montanist culture in the Vatican at the time with an extreme aversion to what it called “Modernism”, a somewhat enforced attitude to getting the vote carried, and Vatican I was under so much pressure that a priest told me the first business of Vatican II was to close the minutes of Vatican I, since the Vatican I delegates were in such a hurry to clear out.

The Pope gets His authority from Christ’s declaration to Peter about binding and loosing as far as I’m concerned. And in the very next breath Peter was being rebuked by Christ with “Get behind me Satan…” Peter sure wasn’t infallible, and his infallibility was shouted loud and clear in the Gospels and even in Acts at one point. And that’s there for an important reason, in my humble opinion.

You clearly don’t understand the doctrine of papal infallibility.

 

[KjetilK]

John Paul the Second used the ‘ex cathedra’ (infallible seal=all Catholics have to believe it) that women can not be priests.

Not according to the then Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger.

Ratzinger made the point that the teaching was infallible taught, but that it had been so before Pope John Paul II issued Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (which is the document to which you most likely refer). Since it was already infallibly taught - by what we might call the ordinary universal Magisterium - the Pope couldn’t formally define it as infallible. There is a distinction here, between defining something as infallible, which wasn’t defined before, and stating that a certain doctrine is (‘still’) infallible.

Ratzinger wrote (bold emphasis added):

In response to this precise act of the Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, explicitly addressed to the entire Catholic Church, all members of the faithful are required to give their assent to the teaching stated therein. To this end, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, with the approval of the Holy Father, has given an official Reply on the nature of this assent; it is a matter of full definitive assent, that is to say, irrevocable, to a doctrine taught infallibly by the Church. In fact, as the Reply explains, the definitive nature of this assent derives from the truth of the doctrine itself, since, founded on the written Word of God, and constantly held and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary universal Magisterium (cf. Lumen Gentium, 25). Thus, the Reply specifies that this doctrine belongs to the deposit of the faith of the Church. It should be emphasized that the definitive and infallible nature of this teaching of the Church id not arise with the publication of the Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. In the Letter, as the Reply of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith also explains, the Roman Pontiff, having taken account of present circumstances, has confirmed the same teaching by a formal declaration, giving expression once again to quod semper, quod ubique et quod ab omnibus tenendum est, utpote ad fidei depositum pertinens. In this case, an act of the ordinary Papal Magisterium, in itself not infallible, witnesses to the infallibility of the teaching of a doctrine already possessed by the Church.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Not according to the then Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger.

Ratzinger made the point that the teaching was infallible taught, but that it had been so before Pope John Paul II issued Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (which is the document to which you most likely refer). Since it was already infallibly taught - by what we might call the ordinary universal Magisterium - the Pope couldn’t formally define it as infallible. There is a distinction here, between defining something as infallible, which wasn’t defined before, and stating that a certain doctrine is (‘still’) infallible.

Ratzinger wrote (bold emphasis added):

This confirms “infallibility” has always been taught and believed in the Catholic Church. And what ever and when ever Peter binds and looses with his divine keys on earth, Jesus binds and looses in heaven. What is noteworthy in papal infallibility, whatever Peter binds and looses will not be any new revelation in opposition or contradiction to what Jesus already revealed and taught in the fullness of times. This is the infallible guarantee from the Holy Spirit.

Infallibility is a negative doctrine, which the Holy Spirit protects, defends, proclaims, clarifies and teaches through Peter, what Jesus already revealed and taught for our morality. Infallibility binds and looses any and all secular doctrines or dogmas that try to infect, change or remove what Jesus revealed and taught to His Apostles. Thus no holy orders for woman. Although there are religious orders for women in the Catholic church.

If Jesus walked on water?, who called Peter out from his boat (Church) to walk on water with Jesus, when Peter began to sink, when he took his faith away from Jesus. Proves the Church possesses an infallibility so long as Jesus is present. Jesus will not allow Peter to sink, so long as Peter is present with Jesus in the Holy Spirit, this is infallibility.

When Jesus gives Simon a new name in Peter=Rock and gave Peter the keys to open and close on earth, while Jesus opens and closes in heaven proves the Church possesses an infallibility.

Papal infallibility put’s all secular powers in every age on notice. That the secular world’s winds and doctrine cannot and will not prevail over the divine revelations and teachings of Jesus Christ. So long as Peter is present. Christianity’s infallible teachings from Jesus Christ will always be proclaimed infallibly by Peter in communion with all Apostolic Successors to the Apostles.
Peace be with you

 

[KjetilK]

Yes. Where have I disagreed? My point was that Ordinatio Sacerdotslis was NOT an ex cathedra statement. John Paul II didn’t define anything. He merely pointed to what had already been defined.

 

[cena]

I’m a Protestant convert to the Catholic Church, and I’m not an admirer of the “papal infallibility” doctrine, right or wrong. One of my reasons is that all it does is toss a huge spanner into the works for anyone who hopes the churches will unify at some stage.

Oh, don’t get me wrong - I think the Pope speaks with authority. That was affirmed when Christ set up the office with Peter as the first “pope”, stating quite clearly “What you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and what you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” Incidentally the fact Christ was indicating that there could be both “binding” and “loosing” indicates the church could change it’s mind, and at some stage declare a previously binding ruling to no longer be so.

As my old PROTESTANT pastor put it, Christ was giving His Church authority, and added, “What’s the use of having a church if you’re not going to give it any authority?”

But let’s consider the election of John Paul I, who, to quote Wikipedia 'reigned 26 August 1978 to his sudden death 33 days later."

That’s four weeks and five days.

Yet it took the conclave of Cardinals weeks of deliberation, and I assume they were guided by the Holy Spirit in doing so, and just four and a half weeks later, he died.

So either God didn’t know he was sick or would die (which would make God less than omnipotent) or the Cardinals picked the wrong man (which would cast doubt on their judgement in other matters, including advice to the Pope on matters ex-Cathedra), or he was murdered (but there was no evidence of that), or he did or failed to do something (which would cast doubt on Papal infallibility).

Whichever way you look at it, this particular and recent event doesn’t do much to confirm my faith in “Papal Infallibility”.

I’m also somewhat cynical about the circumstances in which it was brought in. The Papal States were under siege from outside forces, there was an ultra-Montanist culture in the Vatican at the time with an extreme aversion to what it called “Modernism”, a somewhat enforced attitude to getting the vote carried, and Vatican I was under so much pressure that a priest told me the first business of Vatican II was to close the minutes of Vatican I, since the Vatican I delegates were in such a hurry to clear out.

The Pope gets His authority from Christ’s declaration to Peter about binding and loosing as far as I’m concerned. And in the very next breath Peter was being rebuked by Christ with “Get behind me Satan…” Peter sure wasn’t infallible, and his infallibility was shouted loud and clear in the Gospels and even in Acts at one point. And that’s there for an important reason, in my humble opinion.

Papal infallibility only applies when defining something for faith or morals, settling an issue, etc. it has nothing to do with the actual person. Is there a promise that every pope would be perfect other than when he uses the seal? I am confused as to why that guy dying so early makes you question papal infallibility.

 

[TarkanAttila]

Papal infallibility only applies when defining something for faith or morals, settling an issue, etc. it has nothing to do with the actual person. Is there a promise that every pope would be perfect other than when he uses the seal? I am confused as to why that guy dying so early makes you question papal infallibility.

…Yeah. I don’t get that, either. There’s been a lot worse things Popes have done. If papal infallibility were the same thing as, say, papal sinlessness, I could not be Catholic.

Papal infallibility is really only a very small thing that is used very infrequently. And, yes, I know, “total power corrupts totally”. But I don’t see anyone making any complaints about the power of the ordinary teaching authority of the bishops, or about how bishops could have too many councils and bind up the Church with Ecumenical Councils.

 

[Expatreprocedit]

The Holy Spirit prevented any bad popes from teaching, most likely on morals…and it is evident they were quite lacking…

Pope Boniface VIII made a solemn pronouncement at the end of the bull Unam Sactam (1302) that submission to the pope was necessary for salvation. He was placed in hell by Dante.

 

[cena]

The essence of infallibility is to serve the Church, not have it run by a dictator.

The dilemna is already there…when Christ appointed Peter as head of His Church and of the apostles…and moments later, Christ referred to him as Satan, following the thinking of men, when Peter attempted to talk Christ out of His Passion and death.

So the Church has had good popes and bad popes…the former, those who caved in to the opinions of men…and likewise never wrote anything on faith and morals during their pontificate.

The Nicene Creed sums up our faith. The dogmas of Mary reflect the faith and conviction of the believers going back to the beginning who considered Mary conceived without sin and not deserving the wages of sin.

Prior to the declaration of Infallibility, the pope would teach, provide financial support to emerging local churches, and discipline…with the universal assent of believers throughout the world, this the working of the Holy Spirit in the office of Peter.

The need for infallibility came about with the changing conditions of mankind, starting with the French Revolution, and people in general wanting to the right to determine their own lives…not the monarchy or anyone else for that matter. The Church needed clear and irrevocable leadership but the Vatican I Council concluded the pope must first reflect on the faith of believers, consult with the bishops, and if they assent, the pope is then authorized to declare dogma.

Today what is in use are papal encyclicals and not all carry the same weight of truth and/or application. The bishop of the local church would be responsible for teaching this document.

The bottom line is not control, but service to the universal Church. We are one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic to this day.

The Holy Spirit prevented any bad popes from teaching, most likely on morals…and it is evident they were quite lacking…

I don’t think just teaching is covered by papal infallibility.

 

[YADA]

I’m a Protestant convert to the Catholic Church, and I’m not an admirer of the “papal infallibility” doctrine, right or wrong. One of my reasons is that all it does is toss a huge spanner into the works for anyone who hopes the churches will unify at some stage.

Oh, don’t get me wrong - I think the Pope speaks with authority. That was affirmed when Christ set up the office with Peter as the first “pope”, stating quite clearly “What you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and what you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” Incidentally the fact Christ was indicating that there could be both “binding” and “loosing” indicates the church could change it’s mind, and at some stage declare a previously binding ruling to no longer be so.

As my old PROTESTANT pastor put it, Christ was giving His Church authority, and added, “What’s the use of having a church if you’re not going to give it any authority?”

But let’s consider the election of John Paul I, who, to quote Wikipedia 'reigned 26 August 1978 to his sudden death 33 days later."

That’s four weeks and five days.

Yet it took the conclave of Cardinals weeks of deliberation, and I assume they were guided by the Holy Spirit in doing so, and just four and a half weeks later, he died.

So either God didn’t know he was sick or would die (which would make God less than omnipotent) or the Cardinals picked the wrong man (which would cast doubt on their judgement in other matters, including advice to the Pope on matters ex-Cathedra), or he was murdered (but there was no evidence of that), or he did or failed to do something (which would cast doubt on Papal infallibility).

Whichever way you look at it, this particular and recent event doesn’t do much to confirm my faith in “Papal Infallibility”.

I’m also somewhat cynical about the circumstances in which it was brought in. The Papal States were under siege from outside forces, there was an ultra-Montanist culture in the Vatican at the time with an extreme aversion to what it called “Modernism”, a somewhat enforced attitude to getting the vote carried, and Vatican I was under so much pressure that a priest told me the first business of Vatican II was to close the minutes of Vatican I, since the Vatican I delegates were in such a hurry to clear out.

The Pope gets His authority from Christ’s declaration to Peter about binding and loosing as far as I’m concerned. And in the very next breath Peter was being rebuked by Christ with “Get behind me Satan…” Peter sure wasn’t infallible, and his infallibility was shouted loud and clear in the Gospels and even in Acts at one point. And that’s there for an important reason, in my humble opinion.

Do you question that Jesus is God? Is Jesus not our Lord & Savior, yet he selected Judas …somehow a Pope selected for a month gives you pause but Jesus choosing a man who would sell His life for 30 pieces of silver does not?

Consider the the Church may have learned something significant in the selection and service of that experience that the Holy Spirit thought was important. Or perhaps that man learned an important truth about God? Do you know? Maybe you don’t understand nor are supposed to. Perhaps you don’t know. Unless you have set yourself up as the authoritative interpreter of our Almighty God. Perhaps you should read the book of Job and spend some time in prayerful contemplation.