Does papal infallibility interfere with free will?

[Student09]

A possible answer occurred to me … tell me if it sounds sensible.

The Holy Spirit would not choose a pope who would use his free will to teach error. Period.

Similarly to the Catholic understanding of predestination - God has “foreknowledge” (not totally accurate since God is in eternity and sees all time at once) of what actions will be take, who will choose Him, etc. However, His knowing this does not interfere with our free will. God has foreknowledge of whether or not a pope will teach error and He chooses a pope who will not teach error or even desire/will to teach error but this doesn’t have to interfere with the pope’s free will.

Yes?

 

[IHeartBenedict]

That is, if the pope is infallible, does that mean that God does not allow him to use his free will to choose to teach error on faith and morals …? So if a pope really wanted to teach error, he couldn’t?

Someone asked me this question. I didn’t know what to say.

It does not interfere, and I will give you a perfect example: The Bible.

We all agree the Bible is inerrant, right? It has no errors. Why is that? Because when the sacred authors had pen to paper, the Holy Spirit prevented them from making an error. That is the textbook definition of infallibility: Being prevented from making an error. Oh, they made plenty of errors usually, but not while they were writing those scriptures.

The same goes for the pope. He can make errors during the course of the day like any other person. But, at certain times of God’s choosing, when a teaching must be defined, God can prevent the pope from making an error in his definition.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

It does not interfere, and I will give you a perfect example: The Bible.

We all agree the Bible is inerrant, right? It has no errors. Why is that? Because when the sacred authors had pen to paper, the Holy Spirit prevented them from making an error. That is the textbook definition of infallibility: Being prevented from making an error. Oh, they made plenty of errors usually, but not while they were writing those scriptures.

The same goes for the pope. He can make errors during the course of the day like any other person. But, at certain times of God’s choosing, when a teaching must be defined, God can prevent the pope from making an error in his definition.

The problem though is that Student is speaking with a non-Christian and so would not agree that the Bible is inerrant. That was my original assumption as well, that he was speaking with a Christian.

God bless you

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

That is, if the pope is infallible, does that mean that God does not allow him to use his free will to choose to teach error on faith and morals …? So if a pope really wanted to teach error, he couldn’t?

Someone asked me this question. I didn’t know what to say.

He can still will to, intend to, teach error, but won’t be permitted to follow thru.

 

[IHeartBenedict]

It does not interfere, and I will give you a perfect example: The Bible.

We all agree the Bible is inerrant, right? It has no errors. Why is that? Because when the sacred authors had pen to paper, the Holy Spirit prevented them from making an error. That is the textbook definition of infallibility: Being prevented from making an error. Oh, they made plenty of errors usually, but not while they were writing those scriptures.

The same goes for the pope. He can make errors during the course of the day like any other person. But, at certain times of God’s choosing, when a teaching must be defined, God can prevent the pope from making an error in his definition.

The problem though is that Student is speaking with a non-Christian and so would not agree that the Bible is inerrant. That was my original assumption as well, that he was speaking with a Christian.

God bless you

Oh. I did not know that. Well, then he has bigger problems to tackle than Papal Infallibility. Thats like arguing Calculus when you’ve never even gotten past basic Math.

 

[Student09]

Anyone want to comment on this proposed answer?

A possible answer occurred to me … tell me if it sounds sensible.

The Holy Spirit would not choose a pope who would use his free will to teach error. Period.

Similarly to the Catholic understanding of predestination - God has “foreknowledge” (not totally accurate since God is in eternity and sees all time at once) of what actions will be take, who will choose Him, etc. However, His knowing this does not interfere with our free will. God has foreknowledge of whether or not a pope will teach error and He chooses a pope who will not teach error or even desire/will to teach error but this doesn’t have to interfere with the pope’s free will.

Yes?

 

[IHeartBenedict]

Anyone want to comment on this proposed answer?

Thats not how it works. We don’t deny that we have had corrupt popes in the past, so that blows that theory out of the water. I repeat what I said earler:

*We all agree the Bible is inerrant, right? It has no errors. Why is that? Because when the sacred authors had pen to paper, the Holy Spirit prevented them from making an error. That is the textbook definition of infallibility: Being prevented from making an error. Oh, they made plenty of errors usually, but not while they were writing those scriptures.

The same goes for the pope. He can make errors during the course of the day like any other person. But, at certain times of God’s choosing, when a teaching must be defined, God can prevent the pope from making an error in his definition.*

 

[Student09]

Thats not how it works. We don’t deny that we have had corrupt popes in the past, so that blows that theory out of the water.

So the Holy Spirit may choose a pope that He knows will be corrupt in some ways, but will not choose one that He knows will specifically have the will to teach error. That is a difference. Think about it. You haven’t demonstrated to me yet that my theory doesn’t work.

 

[IHeartBenedict]

So the Holy Spirit may choose a pope that He knows will be corrupt in some ways, but will not choose one that He knows will specifically have the will to teach error. That is a difference. Think about it. You haven’t demonstrated to me yet that my theory doesn’t work.

Jesus chose Judas, didn’t he?

 

[Student09]

Jesus chose Judas, didn’t he?

That’s not relevant to the logic of my argument.

Honestly, if someone does not soon address my actual argument, I am giving up on this conversation completely.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

That’s not relevant to the logic of my argument.

Honestly, if someone does not soon address my actual argument, I am giving up on this conversation completely.

Student, I thought it was your friend’s argument…

I have tried to answer your argument. What exactly do you see that is lacking in my response to you? If the Pope is infallible he could not speak error, if he did he would cease to be infallible. You cannot be both infallible in matters of faith and morals and, at the same time, be able to speak error in those matters. Again, a triangel cannot be both a triangle and have four sides. It ceases to be a triangle. A person who can speak error ceases to be infallible.

God bless you

 

[IHeartBenedict]

That’s not relevant to the logic of my argument.

Honestly, if someone does not soon address my actual argument, I am giving up on this conversation completely.

I am not quite sure what you are looking for. But this was the best answer I could give you:

It does not interfere, and I will give you a perfect example: The Bible.

We all agree the Bible is inerrant, right? It has no errors. Why is that? Because when the sacred authors had pen to paper, the Holy Spirit prevented them from making an error. That is the textbook definition of infallibility: Being prevented from making an error. Oh, they made plenty of errors usually, but not while they were writing those scriptures.

The same goes for the pope. He can make errors during the course of the day like any other person. But, at certain times of God’s choosing, when a teaching must be defined, God can prevent the pope from making an error in his definition.

 

[josephdaniel29]

If the Pope wanted to teach error (really, a kind of silly hypothetical situation, no?)

Wow, that statement made my jaw drop! Only to Roman Catholics my friend.

Yours in Christ
Joe

 

[Student09]

**THIS **is the argument I was referring to, which I have posted three times now … please actually read it and think it through. I think it’s a valid response to the initial question.

A possible answer occurred to me … tell me if it sounds sensible.

The Holy Spirit would not choose a pope who would use his free will to teach error. Period.

Similarly to the Catholic understanding of predestination - God has “foreknowledge” (not totally accurate since God is in eternity and sees all time at once) of what actions will be take, who will choose Him, etc. However, His knowing this does not interfere with our free will. God has foreknowledge of whether or not a pope will teach error and He chooses a pope who will not teach error or even desire/will to teach error but this doesn’t have to interfere with the pope’s free will.

Yes?

So the Holy Spirit may choose a pope that He knows will be corrupt in some ways, but will not choose one that He knows will specifically have the will to teach error.

 

[IHeartBenedict]

**THIS **is the argument I was referring to, which I have posted three times now … please actually read it and think it through. I think it’s a valid response to the initial question.

And I told you that argument is incorrect. There have been corrupt Popes who actually said wrong things. But they did not teach those wrong things Ex Cathedra.

There are teachings and then there are teachings. There are different levels of teachings. Not all Papal statements are infallible. There could be a Pope who NEVER teaches Ex Cathedra, yet gives many lower level teachings. The only time a teaching is Infallible is when it is made Ex Cathdra (from the Chair of Peter).

I assume you have read this? catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

**THIS **is the argument I was referring to, which I have posted three times now …

If I was a non-Christian, like your friend, my very next rebuttle to this argument would be;* if God has foreknowledge, like you say, why did God choose some of the Pope’s he did? No on argues that there haven’t been wicked and terrible Popes in the past, they are after all human, so why did God choose them if he knew? * It would side track the conversation and be more mud to throw at the wall hoping something sticks.

I would rather not go down that road with a non-Christian because it is beyond your friends question. If it were me, I would stick with the impossibility of an infallible person (in faith and morals) being able to speak error. If he could speak error he would not be infallible. Period. Free will has nothing to do with it.

God bless you

 

[Rence]

A possible answer occurred to me … tell me if it sounds sensible.

The Holy Spirit would not choose a pope who would use his free will to teach error. Period.

Well, that can’t be true because there were Popes that were antipopes and there were “bad” popes in the history of the Church.

 

[Student09]

Well, that can’t be true because there were Popes that were antipopes and there were “bad” popes in the history of the Church.

Ok, so let me get this straight. You are saying that there are popes that have taught error on faith and morals? Or are you saying that there were popes who really wanted to teach error on faith and morals but were mysteriously unable to do so? I always thought the corruption of the “bad” popes was more general and did not apply to this one area … Please clarify.

 

[mark_a]

That is, if the pope is infallible, does that mean that God does not allow him to use his free will to choose to teach error on faith and morals …? So if a pope really wanted to teach error, he couldn’t?

Someone asked me this question. I didn’t know what to say.

From my priest:

Conditions that must be met for a papal statement to be infallible

• Must teach or in some way clarify
• Can’t contradict previous teachings
• Must involve faith and morals
• To be held by all
• Statement made of his own free will
• He must invoke the full authority of his office

 

[Rence]

I know where you are going. Again though, if the Pope could speak error he would not be infallible. If he is infallible he cannot speak error. It has nothing to do with free will.

That’s the point. If someone does not believe that the Pope can’t speak in error, they don’t believe he is infallible. If they believe he may be able to make mistakes in his interpretation of the Holy Spirit, then they believe he can speak in error. That’s the whole point. And it does have to do with free will. If you don’t have free will, you are not capable of misinterpretation or disobedience, but the fact that one has free will means that things outside the Holy Spirit influence them, and they have the free will (whether intentional or not) to misinterpret or minunderstand, because being human, they have their own beliefs, values, even biases.

The source of my being is from God. I am a human, I cannot be an elephant even if I really really wanted to be one. It does not limit my free will because I cannot be an elephant despite the fact that God made me a human.

**Free will does not turn someone into something they are not. Free will molds a person into what they are. **

Do you not see that if the Pope is infallible that the ability to speak error (in faith and morals) would be a contradiction? Yes or no? Is a four sided triangle a contradiction? What if I really wanted a triangle to have four sides? Is my free will limited because I can’t make a four sided triangle?

If one belives in infallibility, yes. But the OP is talking about someone who doesn’t believe in papal infallibility. That person thinks the Pope is capable of error, and there is no contradiction. A four sided triagle is not a triangle, free will has nothing to do with it. I think you’re confused about free will is. Free will comes from within you. It’s the ability to extrapolate what’s around you and use that to mold oneself and put out what comes from within. For example: Adam and Eve were told not to touch the fruit from the Tree of Life. They used their free will to disobey him. They didn’t turn the fruit into a diamond. They didn’t make something out of nothing. They didn’t change something outside of themselves. They made a decision and acted it out with the gift of free will. If they had no free will, they would not have been capable of choosing an option that would have put them outside of God’s Grace. So the analogy of using Free will to create a four sided triangle does not encompass free will.

God bless you