How can a fallible vote produce an infallible pope?

[Abu]

Blue Horizon #37
How do we know with certainty that Christ actually intended the successors of Peter have this charism is a whole other question

Answered by the great John Henry Cardinal Newman.

John Henry Newman’s proof from necessity:
“A revelation is not given, if there be no authority to decide what it is that is given….The absolute need of a spiritual supremacy is at present the strongest of arguments in favour of the fact of its supply. Surely, either an objective revelation has not been given, or it has been provided with means for impressing its objectiveness on the world. If Christianity be a social religion, as it certainly is, and if it be based on certain ideas acknowledged as divine, or a creed….and if these ideas have various aspects, and make distinct impressions on different minds, and issue in consequence in a multiplicity of developments, true, or false, or mixed…what power will suffice to meet and to do justice to these conflicting conditions, but a supreme authority ruling and reconciling individual judgments by a divine right and a recognized wisdom?..philosophy, taste, prejudice, passion, party, caprice, will find no common measure, unless there be some supreme power to control the mind and to compel agreement.” An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, 1845, Rev. ed. 1878, Part I, Ch II, Sect. II, 12-13].
newmanreader.org/works/development/chapter2.html

[Cited in *Apologetics and Catholic Doctrine, Archbishop Michael Sheehan, revised Fr Peter Joseph, The Saint Austin Press, 2001, p 146-7].

 

[commenter]

The wrong guy would be any guy other than “THE guy” God wanted.

We have no way of knowing if God had any one man in mind. There may be many men with the needed qualities. For that matter even if he didn’t have the best intelligence or personal skills, that doesn’t affect infallibility. Infallibility doesn’t mean the best candidate will get elected, nor does it mean he will proclaim the truth. (He might remain silent; he might not know the answer to a particular question; it may not be the right time to proclaim this particular dogma). Infallibility only means he won’t proclaim what is false (in matters of importance, faith and morals).

Obviously some popes made decisions in general that might have been made better by another man, if that other man had been elected pope. We have had weak administrators when other candidates may - possibly - have been better ones. None of this affects infallibility. I don’t know if our batting average for electing the best popes is any better than the Southern Baptists for electing the best President of their Convention. None of this affects infallibility. But it is important for Catholics, and other denominations, to try to select the best possible candidate.

The charism of infallibility is not affected by the goodness or badness of a given pope. That said, it matters a lot for other reasons if a pope is good, bad, or great; just as it matters for any Christian to be good, bad, or great. The most important part of being a pope is the need to strive for sainthood, but that applies to you and me also.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

It certainly isn’t the obvious or only reading of any mined NT texts I have seen.

Yes that sounds right, esp if we give a meaning to the Scriptural texts that at face value are not easily seen to support the dogma we find in them.

The problem, for the dogma of Papal infallibility then seems to become,
… on what basis is the authority that interprets Papal infallibility from Scripture/Tradition itself certain in this interpretation?

 

[davidv]

Yes that sounds right, esp if we give a meaning to the Scriptural texts that at face value are not easily seen to support the dogma we find in them.

The problem, for the dogma of Papal infallibility then seems to become,
… on what basis is the authority that interprets Papal infallibility from Scripture/Tradition itself certain in this interpretation?

It is quite clear to me that basis is laid out in the new testament. All authority comes from God and this was given to the apostles and their successors by Jesus.

 

[commenter]

Your Protestant friend probably accepts the fact that fallible writers and translators handled the Bible before they ever saw it. That does not eliminate the inspiration of Scripture. There were fallible votes taken in putting together the KJV, or whatever version your friend chooses (votes) to be the best Bible translation. If your friend can accept fallible votes producing what is in their hands an infallible Bible, obviously a fallible papal conclave can produce a pope with charism of infallibility.

 

[Ignatius]

Your Protestant friend probably accepts the fact that fallible writers and translators handled the Bible before they ever saw it. That does not eliminate the inspiration of Scripture. There were fallible votes taken in putting together the KJV, or whatever version your friend chooses (votes) to be the best Bible translation. If your friend can accept fallible votes producing what is in their hands an infallible Bible, obviously a fallible papal conclave can produce a pope with charism of infallibility.

That’s the answer!!!

 

[steve_b]

We have no way of knowing if God had any one man in mind. There may be many men with the needed qualities. For that matter even if he didn’t have the best intelligence or personal skills, that doesn’t affect infallibility. Infallibility doesn’t mean the best candidate will get elected, nor does it mean he will proclaim the truth. (He might remain silent; he might not know the answer to a particular question; it may not be the right time to proclaim this particular dogma). Infallibility only means he won’t proclaim what is false (in matters of importance, faith and morals).

Obviously some popes made decisions in general that might have been made better by another man, if that other man had been elected pope. We have had weak administrators when other candidates may - possibly - have been better ones. None of this affects infallibility.

True. Infallibility doesn’t come from the individual. When Pope Benedict resigned his office as pope, he no longer has the charism of papal infallibility.

 

[eddie_too]

the petrine office is a unique institution (there is nothing else comparable in all creation) established by Jesus. accordingly, particular and unique graces come with the office just as particular (but not unique) graces come from the seven sacraments when they are received in the state of grace.

among these graces are the power to proclaim infallibly the gospel of Jesus Christ. on the other hand, should a pope ever proclaim a doctrine whose accuracy is objected to by the entire body of bishops, the faithful would have justification for rejecting that pope’s proclamation. so, even the doctrine of papal infallibility has its limitations.

from a realistic and perhaps more pragmatic view point, the chances that a pope would teach contrary to all of the bishops is virtually nil. most likely, in such an event, it would be due to some kind of illness that has incapacitated or rendered ineffective the pope’s intellect or will.

 

[Abu]

eddie too #46
among these graces are the power to proclaim infallibly the gospel of Jesus Christ. on the other hand, should a pope ever proclaim a doctrine whose accuracy is objected to by the entire body of bishops, the faithful would have justification for rejecting that pope’s proclamation. so, even the doctrine of papal infallibility has its limitations.

Incorrect. The bishops do not have the infallibility with which Christ has empowered the Pope.

The evidence of papal final decision, subject to no Ecumenical Council bishops:
In *A Catechism Of The Catholic Church *by Fr Robert J Fox, Franciscan Herald Press, 1979, on the Council of Constance, 1414-1418, Fr Fox records that “ One decree, passed in the earlier stages of the council, asserted the superiority of an ecumenical council over the pope; this was later rejected.” (p 246).

This confusion is precisely what the esteemed Fr John Hardon, S.J. addresses: “But possessing the truth is one thing, and deciding on what seems to be true is false – this prerogative does not belong to all the faithful….Moreover, he [the Pope] can do what they [the bishops] cannot do. He can make a decision, and proclaim a doctrine without either prior dependence on their consensus or subsequent approval from the hierarchy….their acceptance is not a necessary condition for the exercise of infallibility.” [My emphasis. *The Teaching Church In Our Time, 1978, Daughters of St Paul, p 112, 114].

This is based on the teaching of Vatican I:
“9. So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.” (*Pastor Aeternus *of Vatican I).

 

[Abu]

Blue Horizon #41
The problem, for the dogma of Papal infallibility then seems to become,
… on what basis is the authority that interprets Papal infallibility from Scripture/Tradition itself certain in this interpretation?

Such a “problem” could be applied to all of Scripture as the doubting do as it suits them.

So real Catholics believe as Vatican II teaches.

Answer by Fr. John Echert on 20/12/2007 (EWTN):
Extract:
‘In the text below, I provide an accurate translation, with the correct order: The Church formally teaches that the Sacred Scriptures are absolutely without error. This teaching is not arrived at inductively – namely, that a careful study of the entire Bible has revealed no discrepancies or difficulties – but follows from the fact that God is the ultimate Author of the Bible and falsehood is incompatible with Truth Itself. As taught by the Second Vatican Council: The inspired books teach the truth. “Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach the truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.” ’

 

[Blue_Horizon]

It is quite clear to me that basis is laid out in the new testament. All authority comes from God and this was given to the apostles and their successors by Jesus.

The problem for Catholics, as opposed to Protestants, I suppose is that we hold that the Bible is always in need of interpretation if we read it for more than devotional purposes. Sometimes the Church accepts that the literal meaning is true, other times not. Sometimes the figurative meaning is true, sometimes not.
In ambiguous passages it’s sometimes the most likely meaning that is true, sometimes not.

What person has the authority to infallible decide on these matters?
Well, it’s difficult to rely on Scripture to solve this issue infallibly it seems because those passages are in need of interpretation themselves by an infallible person who still has not been credibly identified yet.

So I am not sure Scripture alone can solve this issue. Scripture helps of course but maybe saying it is the basis is a little strong, it’s more complex perhaps.

The answer has to involve oral tradition passed down the generations of leading apostles/disciples… Or a discernment that evolved over the centuries under the guidance of the HS.

But how do we know that discernment is absolutely certain?
That’s the more difficult question.