Does this refute Papal Infallibility?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Masihi
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Masihi said:
I think the Catholic Church made a huge mistake in general to use a word which means one is incapable of making mistakes or being wrong.
Click to expand...
You’re not listening.

Why don’t you study what it REALLY means rather than insisting on your WRONG WRONG WRONG understanding of the concept?
 
What’s the point of nuclear weapons when there are so many people stabbing each other?
 
He was reaffirming already made doctrine.

Unlike the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption, which were never declared dogmas prior to the Pope’s making them so.

Jim
 
JimR-OCDS said:
He was reaffirming already made doctrine.

Unlike the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption, which were never declared dogmas prior to the Pope’s making them so.

Jim
Click to expand...
Yes he was. And exercising his charism of infallibility when he did so.

It doesn’t matter what the nature of the teaching was. The fact is he met all the criteria, and therefore bolstered an already established teaching with his extraordinary authority. He was:

(1) in a matter of faith or morals (faith, in this case)
“Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself,”

(2) speaking in his capacity as the Supreme Teacher in his Petrine office (ex cathedra).
…in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren…"

(3) pronouncing something to be definitively held by the faithful of the Universal Church
“…I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.”

All the criteria are met, and Pope John Paul II was protected by infallibility when he did this.
 
Last edited:
What exactly makes a decision infallible, and what disqualifies the above mistakes of Popes in history as not being infallible?
 
Last edited:
Masihi said:
What exactly makes a decision infallible, and what disqualifies the above mistakes of Popes in history as not being infallible?
Click to expand...
Then let me put it AGAIN for you, from my post above:

(1) when teaching in his capacity as the supreme Teacher of the universal Church;
(2) defines and pronounces something in a matter of faith or morals
(3) to be definitively held by the faithful.

It is a preventative, negative protection. Infallibility does not mean whatever the Pope says is right, only that if the limited conditions are met, he will be prevented from teaching error. If he doesn’t do his homework, infallibility could simply mean the Pope will say nothing, rather than say something wrong. Worst case, it could mean the Pope can die before he defines error.

Infallibility has nothing to do with whether the Pope is a holy, educated man, or if he is a crook and a scoundrel. He can even be a closet heretic, but none of that will ever make its way into Catholic teaching.
 
Remember, the infallibility of the Pope is related to that of the Church. The Church is not sinless, neither is the Pope. Not everything anyone in the Church says is infallible, neither is everything the Pope says. The whole Church is infallible in as much as the truths of faith and the moral law will always be handed on without error for all time. The Pope is infallible because he can provide a final judgment for the whole Church as to what are those truths of faith if they are disputed (he doesn’t make up the truths of faith, he confirms the truths of faith or condemns heresies contrary to them). Therefore, he is only infallible when he serves this purpose for the whole Church.
 
Dude. It’s right there in his post labeled 1-2-3.
 
Last edited:
Just off the top of my head - the Pope of Joan of Arc’s day had nothing to do with her death - purely an act of the local.bishop. And if he did it is not a decision that would meet the criteria in relation to infallibility.
 
Last edited:
Masihi said:
What are these limited conditions you speak of?
Click to expand...
Let me post it for the THIRD time, and hopefully you will eventually comprehend.

(1) when teaching in his capacity as the supreme Teacher of the universal Church;
(2) defines and pronounces something in a matter of faith or morals
(3) to be definitively held by the faithful.

It is a preventative, negative protection. Infallibility does not mean whatever the Pope says is right, only that if the limited conditions are met, he will be prevented from teaching error. If he doesn’t do his homework, infallibility could simply mean the Pope will say nothing, rather than say something wrong. Worst case, it could mean the Pope can die before he defines error.

Infallibility has nothing to do with whether the Pope is a holy, educated man, or if he is a crook and a scoundrel. He can even be a closet heretic, but none of that will ever make its way into Catholic teaching.

Will you still need me to post this a FOURTH time?
 
Maybe JUST post points 1, 2, and 3 AND label each of them “limited conditions”; maybe then it will sink in.
 
deMontfort said:
Maybe JUST post points 1, 2, and 3 AND label each of them “limited conditions”; maybe then it will sink in.
Click to expand...
Let’s do that.

LIMITED CONDITIONS FOR PAPAL INFALLIBILITY.

The Pope is infallible ONLY UNDER THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:

(1) when teaching in his capacity as the supreme Teacher of the universal Church;
(2) defines and pronounces something in a matter of faith or morals
(3) to be definitively held by the faithful.
 
While some historians place a number of Papal statements under the ex cathedra banner, like HV under Paul VI, that is disputed by others, there are only two that virtually every Church scholar agree were definitive ex cathedra proclamations : that of the Immaculate Conception in 1854 by Plus IX and that of the Assumption in 1950. It wasn’t until 1870 that Vatican I formally approved and made infallibility a defined dogma. The 1854 Declaration pre dates that but most feel it is a true ex cathedra statement.
 
These three things all happened in history yet there still were mistakes.
 
Which three things and for what? Because some them are sins of Pope’s which have nothing to do with the teaching of faith and morals.
 
Last edited:
Canvas said:
While some historians place a number of Papal statements under the ex cathedra banner, like HV under Paul VI, that is disputed by others, there are only two that virtually every Church scholar agree were definitive ex cathedra proclamations : that of the Immaculate Conception in 1854 by Plus IX and that of the Assumption in 1950. It wasn’t until 1870 that Vatican I formally approved and made infallibility a defined dogma. The 1854 Declaration pre dates that but most feel it is a true ex cathedra statement.
Click to expand...
Humanae Vitae’s teachings are indeed infallible under the Ordinary Magisterium, but it does not meet the Vatican I criteria for Papal infallibility. Ordinatio sacerdotalis does. It is manifestly clear.

And by the way, the entire document is not necessarily covered by the charism; only the definition. 1854, definitely. So is 1950. But then, so is 1302, centuries before Vatican I (as much as Unam sanctam irritates me, it DOES meet the criteria for infallibility).
 
Masihi said:
These three things all happened in history yet there still were mistakes.
Click to expand...
Then you have to prove it. Let’s just take one or two of your allegations.

Prove to us how Pope Stephen, in his exhumation and “trial” of Pope Formosus, met all three criteria.

Prove to us how Pope Pius XII in signing a concordat with the Nazis met all three criteria.

When explaining one example earlier, I easily broke down the definition into how it meets the three criteria. How does yours?

Go through your other examples if you’re so inclined. How do any of these meet the three criteria? Since you make the allegation, you are burdened to prove it.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top