Do all non-Catholics agree with the following about the Pope?

[joe370]

Do all non-Catholics agree with the following, which will be followed by 3 more question:

Infallibility does not mean that a pope is incapable of sin. All popes are human and therefore sinners.

Infallibility does not mean that the pope is inspired. Papal infallibility does not involve any special revelation from God. A pope learns about his faith in the same way that anyone else does–he studies.

Infallibility cannot be used to change existing doctrines or proclaim new ones. It can only be used to confirm or clarify and develop (when needed,) - what has always been taught. The teachings of Jesus cannot change but they can be clarified and further developed over time - eg the Trinity.

Infallibility does not mean that a pope cannot err when he speaks as a private Bishop. As a man he is fallible and capable of error.

Infallibility does not guarantee that a pope will officially teach anything. However, when he, (as the successor of Peter) - does teach he is protected by the perpetual guidance of the Holy Spirit in some ineffable manner. Probably the same way God guided the prophets and the Apostles to teach infallibly, preventing them from teaching erroneously. If he decides to teach the truth, from the chair of Peter, then the Holy Spirit is the only divine Person that get’s all the credit since the HS is the One Who will, if a Pope decides to teach error, (either knowingly or unknowingly) - prevent him from doing so, of course in some inexplicable way.

Question:

Infallibility is not something that endows a pope with divine powers, but rather it is a gift of the Holy Spirit that protects the Church from the human frailties of a Bishop of Rome. If we believed half the cray stuff out there on the big ol’ internet about the Pope, and it turned out to be true, none of us would even belong to the CC. LOL…

All Christians believe that God used sinful fallible men (apostles and successors such as Luke etc.) - to infallibly teach and write Scripture. Why then is it so hard to believe that God would continue to work through their sinful fallible successors until Jesus’ return, in order to to protect doctrinal truth from corruption and ensure the preservation of it, just as God did with the 1st century apostles for the 1st century Christians.

Aren’t the 16th century or the 21st century Christians just as entitled to the same certainty regarding doctrinal truth as the 1st century Christians were, who were taught by nothing more than sinful, fallible leaders via the guidance of God, just as is the case today?

Wouldn’t the HS continue to guide the church leaders that succeeded the apostles and the church leaders that succeeded them…in perpetuity?

Surely such a protection was implied when Jesus said to His chosen leaders:

“He who hears you hears me.”

“I will be with you forever.”

“He will guide you into all truth.”

 

[Cavaradossi]

It would be easier for non-Catholics to make a judgment on how they felt about papal infallibility if they knew just which statements were infallible. For example, is this statement from Unam Sanctam infallible?

Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

If not, why? It seems to fit the conditions for infallibility in that we have here,

• The Roman Pontiff
• Speaking ex-cathedra
• Defining
• That a doctrine concerning faith or morals
• Must be held by the entire Church

If it is infallible, then why does the Vatican no longer emphasize this important teaching that all human beings must be subject to the Roman Pontiff for salvation? Furthermore, how much of the document is infallible, is it just the line which is declared, or is it the entire document? That would also be important because Pope Boniface VIII also had this to say about those not visibly in union with the pope (specifically the Greeks).

Therefore, if the Greeks or others should say that they are not confided to Peter and to his successors, they must confess not being the sheep of Christ, since Our Lord says in John ‘there is one sheepfold and one shepherd.’

So if Unam Sanctam possesses the marks of infallibility, is this line also infallible, or is it just the declared line (the first quotation)? If so, why is it taught today that those who do not submit to the pope are still in an imperfect union with the Church as Christians?

Until the Catholic Church officially releases some sort of list of infallible statements, I don’t think it will be easy for us to judge what exactly papal infallibility is.

 

[Crystall]

How difficult is it to understand that the Pope, Cardinals, Bishops & Priests are all men, with all human frailties, just as the Desciples were, and they were not forced, yet chose to follow Christ. This does not make them better than anyone else as they are representatives of Christ and motivational speakers of His word and work. We are all sinners, not saints.

 

[Marybeloved]

So if Unam Sanctam possesses the marks of infallibility, is this line also infallible, or is it just the declared line (the first quotation)? If so, why is it taught today that those who do not submit to the pope are still in an imperfect union with the Church as Christians?

How does the underlined bit in bold change that statement you quoted? We still have the obligation to submit ourselves to the authority set up by Christ, we still have the obligation to achieve full communion as desired by our Lord. That does not change

The scriptures say that w/out being born of water or spirit, one cannot enter the kingdom of heaven, that if we don’t eat the flesh of Christ, we have no life- and many such like seemingly absolutist statements. Yet both Catholics and orthodox teach that those who through no fault of their own are not Christians, can still be saved, that unbaptized babies can still enter the kingdom of heaven etc etc- Do these positions change/contradict the scripture? Is baptism or Holy Communion now no longer required?

 

[tskrobacz]

Isn’t it easier to trust that despite her warts, flaws and blunders, the Church’s teachings are guided by the Holy Spirit and thus always providing a rock to help us live this life?

If we don’t trust even this, then we have no place but ourself to turn for moral guidance. I for one am grateful that we have the Saints through history (on this All Saints day) to help us see through the institution and the humanity of Church to that which is guided by Jesus himself and is fully worthy of our trust. With Jesus and the Holy Spirit as the author of infallible statements, it is quite easy to defer to the Vicar of Christ to guide us.

 

[Cavaradossi]

How does the underlined bit in bold change that statement you quoted? We still have the obligation to submit ourselves to the authority set up by Christ, we still have the obligation to achieve full communion as desired by our Lord. That does not change

The scriptures say that w/out being born of water or spirit, one cannot enter the kingdom of heaven, that if we don’t eat the flesh of Christ, we have no life- and many such like seemingly absolutist statements. Yet both Catholics and orthodox teach that those who through no fault of their own are not Christians, can still be saved, that unbaptized babies can still enter the kingdom of heaven etc etc- Do these positions change/contradict the scripture? Is baptism or Holy Communion now no longer required?

Because the Vatican saying that those outside of the Catholic Church are in an imperfect union with her is essentially an ecumenism friendly loophole for the possibility of salvation for Christians who are outside of the Church. It’s completely incompatible with Pope Boniface VIII’s statement in Unam Sanctam that outside of submission to the Roman Pontiff, there is no salvation. This is especially apparent when you take the statement in the context of the rest of the bull where he says that anybody not under the pope is not within the sheepfold of Christ.

Either Unam Sanctam is incorrect (meaning the rules for when a papal statement is infallible are inconsistent) or the Vatican’s current teaching is in error. Finding a middle ground is essentially mental gymnastics.

The Orthodox don’t teach, by the way that we are certain that those outside of the Church can find salvation. They teach that there is hope for those outside of the Church because God is merciful.

 

[jam070406]

Because the Vatican saying that those outside of the Catholic Church are in an imperfect union with her is essentially an ecumenism friendly loophole for the possibility of salvation for Christians who are outside of the Church. It’s completely incompatible with Pope Boniface VIII’s statement in Unam Sanctam that outside of submission to the Roman Pontiff, there is no salvation. This is especially apparent when you take the statement in the context of the rest of the bull where he says that anybody not under the pope is not within the sheepfold of Christ.

Either Unam Sanctam is incorrect (meaning the rules for when a papal statement is infallible are inconsistent) or the Vatican’s current teaching is in error. Finding a middle ground is essentially mental gymnastics.

The Orthodox don’t teach, by the way that we are certain that those outside of the Church can find salvation. They teach that there is hope for those outside of the Church because God is merciful.

It seems to me that Boniface’s reign was during the Councils of Lyons which attempted Unity. It seems Unam Sanctum was written sometime directly after when the Greeks involved in talks rejected Unity. Perhaps, and I cannot confirm, that it was a result of that and directed at those involved at the time. The Church has a Teaching on those that cause schism and those that are born into a faith community not in union with the Pope. I don’t believe they equate the two.

 

[Contarini]

Do all non-Catholics agree with the following, which will be followed by 3 more question

Certainly all non-Catholics do not understand infallibility as you have described it–in fact, most do not. However, plenty of learned Protestants (and Orthodox) do understand it and reject it in the form you have described it.

All Christians believe that God used sinful fallible men (apostles and successors such as Luke etc.) - to infallibly teach and write Scripture. Why then is it so hard to believe that God would continue to work through their sinful fallible successors until Jesus’ return, in order to to protect doctrinal truth from corruption and ensure the preservation of it, just as God did with the 1st century apostles for the 1st century Christians.

I don’t think it is. I think the question is whether God has in fact chosen this particular means, not whether He could! (I think He probably did–but many learned Protestants and Orthodox differ with me!)

Aren’t the 16th century or the 21st century Christians just as entitled to the same certainty regarding doctrinal truth as the 1st century Christians were, who were taught by nothing more than sinful, fallible leaders via the guidance of God, just as is the case today?

I think that when you make the “certainty” argument you discredit your entire position. Nothing is more certain than that papal infallibility does not lead to certainty. As Cavaradossi points out, there’s plenty of debate over just what statements are infallible and what those statements mean. Someone in the 14th century who accepted Unam Sanctam as infallible would probably not dream that a document like Lumen Gentium was remotely possible as an expression of the Catholic Magisterium.

Note that I’m not claiming that infallibility is wrong or self-contradictory. I’m simply pointing out that whatever it does, it certainly does not provide certainty–not a solid basis for certainty, anyway. (Of course Catholics may hold to a kind of false certainty based on what they consider, at a particular moment, to be the “infallible” teaching of the Church–but that’s not a rationally justifiable position and is not substantially different from the “certainty” many Protestants have that their interpretation of Scripture is the only possible one.)

I would phrase the question thus: Aren’t modern Christians just as entitled as early Christians to a Church to which they can commit themselves unconditionally without fearing that this commitment may conflict with loyalty to the Word of God?

Wouldn’t the HS continue to guide the church leaders that succeeded the apostles and the church leaders that succeeded them…in perpetuity?

I think that it’s generally presumptuous to make assumptions about what the Holy Spirit “would” do.

Surely such a protection was implied when Jesus said to His chosen leaders:

“He who hears you hears me.”

“I will be with you forever.”

“He will guide you into all truth.”

But you are making certain assumptions about what those passages mean and who the addressees are. These assumptions, however well-justified, clearly are not absolutely certain. Therefore, no view based on them can be absolutely certain.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

It seems to me that Boniface’s reign was during the Councils of Lyons which attempted Unity. It seems Unam Sanctum was written sometime directly after when the Greeks involved in talks rejected Unity. Perhaps, and I cannot confirm, that it was a result of that and directed at those involved at the time. The Church has a Teaching on those that cause schism and those that are born into a faith community not in union with the Pope. I don’t believe they equate the two.

No, it was directed against the French king who was defying the Pope over questions having to do with control of the French Church. Very similar to the issues that would later lead Henry VIII to break with Rome.

Edwin

 

[dingodile]

All Christians believe that God used sinful fallible men (apostles and successors such as Luke etc.) - to infallibly teach and write Scripture.

Do they? Do all Christians really believe that scripture was infallibly written and is infallibly taught? I don’t, but then I’m not even baptized, so I don’t count.

Why does anyone believe this?

 

[jam070406]

No, it was directed against the French king who was defying the Pope over questions having to do with control of the French Church. Very similar to the issues that would later lead Henry VIII to break with Rome.

Edwin

I can’t look up the document right now. According to the previous poster it mentions the Greeks, who happened to have at that time rejected Unity at Lyons.

 

[Marybeloved]

Because the Vatican saying that those outside of the Catholic Church are in an imperfect union with her is essentially an ecumenism friendly loophole for the possibility of salvation for Christians who are outside of the Church. It’s completely incompatible with Pope Boniface VIII’s statement in Unam Sanctam that outside of submission to the Roman Pontiff, there is no salvation. This is especially apparent when you take the statement in the context of the rest of the bull where he says that anybody not under the pope is not within the sheepfold of Christ.

Either Unam Sanctam is incorrect (meaning the rules for when a papal statement is infallible are inconsistent) or the Vatican’s current teaching is in error. Finding a middle ground is essentially mental gymnastics.

The Orthodox don’t teach, by the way that we are certain that those outside of the Church can find salvation. They teach that there is hope for those outside of the Church because God is merciful.

Doesn’t matter how they word their theology. The fact is the wording of scripture is absolutist and does not give exceptions whereas they say it’s possible to be saved outside those conditions. Just as the CC teaches that its possible to imperfectly belong to the Church despite the absolutist meaning in those teachings you cited- they therefore interpret it all differently.

And with regards to unbaptized babies who die? Where do they go per Orthodox teaching? I’ve had a long debate here at CAF where the Orthodox did boast of the Orthodox teaching that the unbaptized babies go to heaven while poking fun at Catholic theological teaching of Limbo.

With regards to the sheepfold comment, your saying it’s plain is just your own interpretation of the seemingly absolutist wording just as some interpret the similarly absolutist wordings of scripture in many places- It doesn’t make it so. The Church is the sheepfold of Christ, and lack of visible communion does entail being outside the visible sheepfold. The Church says they are in an imperfect communion obviously which is not full and visible and perfect communion. Your interpretation of it is not the only valid one.

 

[jam070406]

No, it was directed against the French king who was defying the Pope over questions having to do with control of the French Church. Very similar to the issues that would later lead Henry VIII to break with Rome.

Edwin

I might also add that this would seem to affirm that the conditions of an ex cathedra statement were not met if it was a personal correspondence meant for the French King. It would seem to indicate, based on tone, that he was frustrated with the happenings of the time and his letter was emotionally charged. And not a prudent pastoral addressing of the Universal Church Faithful.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Do they? Do all Christians really believe that scripture was infallibly written and is infallibly taught? I don’t, but then I’m not even baptized, so I don’t count.

Why does anyone believe this?

Just use the seach engine here, and it will save you much dialogue. Try this thread for example.

Re: Is the Bible Infallible or Inerrant

 

[Marybeloved]

I think that when you make the “certainty” argument you discredit your entire position. Nothing is more certain than that papal infallibility does not lead to certainty. As Cavaradossi points out, there’s plenty of debate over just what statements are infallible and what those statements mean. Someone in the 14th century who accepted Unam Sanctam as infallible would probably not dream that a document like Lumen Gentium was remotely possible as an expression of the Catholic Magisterium.

Note that I’m not claiming that infallibility is wrong or self-contradictory. I’m simply pointing out that whatever it does, it certainly does not provide certainty–not a solid basis for certainty, anyway. (Of course Catholics may hold to a kind of false certainty based on what they consider, at a particular moment, to be the “infallible” teaching of the Church–but that’s not a rationally justifiable position and is not substantially different from the “certainty” many Protestants have that their interpretation of Scripture is the only possible one.)

This reasoning could just as easily be used to discredit the infallibility of an ecumenical council as well. Certainly the situation with the Orientals/Orthodox/Catholics with regards to different councils and Qs of which are valid, which criteria to determine this validity etc displays the same “uncertainty” you speak of- Does it mean that you yourself now do not believe in the infallibility of a valid ecumenical council in proclaiming doctrinal matters, whatever you define “valid” to be?

At the end of it, it seems that you end up discrediting entirely any concept of infallibility at all, scriptural, magisterial, papal, even Apostolic, which ends up resembling agnosticism more than anything.

I would phrase the question thus: Aren’t modern Christians just as entitled as early Christians to a Church to which they can commit themselves unconditionally without fearing that this commitment may conflict with loyalty to the Word of God?

Yes they are! And they can have it in the Catholic Church!

 

[Cavaradossi]

Doesn’t matter how they word their theology. The fact is the wording of scripture is absolutist and does not give exceptions whereas they say it’s possible to be said outside those conditions. And with regards to unbaptized babies who die? Where do they go per Orthodox teaching? I’ve had a long debate here at CAF where the Orthodox did boast of the Orthodox teaching that the unbaptized babies go to heaven while poking fun at Catholic theological teaching of Limbo.

The correct answer is that we don’t know what happens to unbaptized babies. We hope that God is merciful, but there is no way for us to truly know.

With regards to the sheepfold comment, your saying it’s plain is just your own interpretation of the seemingly absolutist wording just as some interpret the similarly absolutist wordings of scripture in many places- It doesn’t make it so. The Church is the sheepfold of Christ, and lack of visible communion does entail being outside the visible sheepfold. The Church says they are in an imperfect communion obviously which is not full and visible and perfect communion. Your interpretation of it is not the only valid one.

It’s pretty hard to misinterpret this statement, as it is quite clear.

Therefore, of the one and only Church there is one body and one head, not two heads like a monster; that is, Christ and the Vicar of Christ, Peter and the successor of Peter, since the Lord speaking to Peter Himself said: ‘Feed my sheep’ [Jn 21:17], meaning, my sheep in general, not these, nor those in particular, whence we understand that He entrusted all to him [Peter]. Therefore, if the Greeks or others should say that they are not confided to Peter and to his successors, they must confess not being the sheep of Christ, since Our Lord says in John ‘there is one sheepfold and one shepherd.’

It leaves absolutely no room for there being any ‘invisible’ sheep of Christ (that is, people united invisibly to the visible Church), as Pope Boniface VIII says that all of Christ’s sheep are entrusted to Peter, and those who do not confess to be confided to Peter and his successors (by which he means the popes) are not Christ’s sheep. All that I’m saying is that some popes like pope Boniface VIII have written some very outrageous statements that fit the criteria for being infallible. Either the doctrine of infallibility is badly defined (i.e., the criteria for determining whether a statement is infallible are incomplete), or the Catholic Church is not doing a good job teaching the infallible statements of past popes, no matter how inconvenient they are.

 

[Marybeloved]

It’s pretty hard to misinterpret this statement, as it is quite clear.

Oh, You mean as clear as this statement right here?: “Verily, verily, I say unto thee, except one be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God!”

It leaves absolutely no room for there being any ‘invisible’ sheep of Christ (that is, people united invisibly to the visible Church), as Pope Boniface VIII says that all of Christ’s sheep are entrusted to Peter, and those who do not confess to be confided to Peter and his successors (by which he means the popes) are not Christ’s sheep. All that I’m saying is that some popes like pope Boniface VIII have written some very outrageous statements that fit the criteria for being infallible. Either the doctrine of infallibility is badly defined (i.e., the criteria for determining whether a statement is infallible are incomplete), or the Catholic Church is not doing a good job teaching the infallible statements of past popes, no matter how inconvenient they are.

Like I said your insistence on “absolutely no room” is just your private interpretation-

 

[jam070406]

The correct answer is that we don’t know what happens to unbaptized babies. We hope that God is merciful, but there is no way for us to truly know.

It’s pretty hard to misinterpret this statement, as it is quite clear.

It leaves absolutely no room for there being any ‘invisible’ sheep of Christ (that is, people united invisibly to the visible Church), as Pope Boniface VIII says that all of Christ’s sheep are entrusted to Peter, and those who do not confess to be confided to Peter and his successors (by which he means the popes) are not Christ’s sheep. All that I’m saying is that some popes like pope Boniface VIII have written some very outrageous statements that fit the criteria for being infallible. Either the doctrine of infallibility is badly defined (i.e., the criteria for determining whether a statement is infallible are incomplete), or the Catholic Church is not doing a good job teaching the infallible statements of past popes, no matter how inconvenient they are.

It did not meet the criteria, nor address all the theological questions. It was not intended to be an official declaration outlining all the details of the topic, to be held by all the Faithful.

 

[Contarini]

I might also add that this would seem to affirm that the conditions of an ex cathedra statement were not met if it was a personal correspondence meant for the French King. It would seem to indicate, based on tone, that he was frustrated with the happenings of the time and his letter was emotionally charged. And not a prudent pastoral addressing of the Universal Church Faithful.

It wasn’t a personal correspondence. It was a bull. And it clearly seemed to be making a dogmatic pronouncement.

Edwin

 

[jam070406]

It wasn’t a personal correspondence. It was a bull. And it clearly seemed to be making a dogmatic pronouncement.

Edwin

Yes, a Bull…addressed to the King. Which contained some, but not all, Catholic Truths regarding salvation.