How can we trust Papal Infallibility when we don't even know some legitimate Popes?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jas84173
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

jas84173

Guest
Annuario Pontificio attaches no consecutive numbers to the popes, stating that it is impossible to decide which side represented at various times the legitimate succession, in particular regarding Pope Leo VIII, Pope Benedict V and some mid-11th-century popes.

If we don’t know, how do we not know the Church didn’t go into Apostasy during this time? It’s just possible the true Pope isn’t known yet we could be to this day adhering to events that an anti pope put into process?
 
Peter denied Jesus 3 times and was still the Rock of the Church.

All we can do is pray for the Holy Father and for the Holy Spirit to guide him.
 
@jas84173 Do you believe our current Pope is legitimate?
 
Last edited:
In those times where was always a true Pope, but yeah, for those that weren’t sure which was it at the time, papal infallibility would not have been much help. In any event, the confusion was always eventually cleared up. In general, however, if the entire episcopate recognizes a Pope, he must be legitimate.

The legitimacy of the Roman Pontiff has long been held to be a dogmatic fact as noted by this CDF document ( http://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/cdfadtu.htm )–the episcopacy cannot err in this matter. Here’s how an old theological manual explained why this must be so:

Hunter’s Outlines of Dogmatic Theology, Vol. 1:
First, then, the Church is infallible when she declares what person holds the office of Pope; for if the person of the Pope were uncertain, it would be uncertain what Bishops were in communion with the Pope; but according to the Catholic faith, as will be proved hereafter, communion with the Pope is a condition for the exercise of the function of teaching by the body of Bishops (n. 208); if then the. uncertainty could not be cleared up, the power of teaching could not be exercised, and Christ’s promise (St. Matt. xxviii. 20; and n. 199, II.) would be falsified, which is impossible.

This argument is in substance the same as applies to other cases of dogmatic facts. Also, it affords an answer to a much vaunted objection to the claims of the Catholic Church, put forward by writers who think that they find proof in history that the election of a certain Pope was simoniacal and invalid, and that the successor was elected by Cardinals who owed their own appointment to the simoniacal intruder; from which it is gathered that the Papacy has been vacant ever since that time. A volume might be occupied if we attempted to . expose all the frailness of the argument which is supposed to lead to this startling conclusion; but it is enough to say that if the Bishops agree in recognizing a certain man as Pope, they are certainly right, for otherwise the body of the Bishops would be separated from their head, and the Divine constitution of the Church would be ruined. In just the same way the infallibility extends to declaring that a certain Council is or is not ecumenical.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Well I sure hope so.
But what I’m saying is if the Church can’t even say for sure who was the Pope at certain times in the past, it seems to really bring the infallibility doctrine into question for me at least. I only recently discovered this and it shocked me there are times in history the Church can’t say for sure which pope was the legitimate pope.
 
Yet, Christ kept His word and protected the Church during the worst times.

None of the invalid Popes, none of the bad Popes, spoke Excathedra.
 
On this rock I will build my church and the gates of Hades shall never prevail against it.

With that said Satan is a sneaky snake. Wouldn’t he love to infiltrate the Church with a anti pope thus leading the true Church into a small sect cult like group and the Church who we believe to be the true Church to have fallen into Apostasy.
 
Of course I’m not saying I believe this it just makes me question things. That’s all my friend. As you know I am quite critical . I apologize.
 
Remember, the whole Church is also infallible. In those cases you bring up, communion was never broken and the identity of the true Church or the contents of the faith were not doubted, people just fought over who got to rule the Church. Remember, our faith is something always handed on by the Church–we don’t just rely on having to look back at old papal definitions.

Think about it: books and copies of papal or concillar decrees may be destroyed or lost to history. Instead, we ordinarily rely on the ordinary and universal Magisterium–the constant and universal teaching of the true faith by the bishops (including the Pope) in their words, letters, catechisms; the belief and handing on of the faith by the faithful in all times and places; in the Church’s worship and traditions, etc. Our faith is not just a list of papal and concilliar definitions–the Pope’s or a Council’s ability to define the faith is called an extraordinary exercise of the Magisterium for this reason. When the clarity of a truth is cast into doubt (not in the sense that people know what the Church teaches but don’t believe it, but rather in the sense that what the Church actually teaches becomes uncertain) and the ordinary means fail to bring this clarity and unity of faith, it is the duty of the Pope to definitively settle the matter and call all to the unity and clarity of faith, so these truths once again can be handed on by the ordinary means throughout the world for ever and ever.

In those cases you mention, the ordinary Magisterium kept functioning just fine–the contents of the faith were never doubted (you didn’t have competing, contradictory papal definitions or anything like that). The true faith was handed on in all its integrity like it always has been and always will be.
 
Last edited:
Apostasy has different meanings. The Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses love to throw the word around in an attempt to say the Church was lost after the Apostles died.
In a sense an Apostasy is when by human error the Spirit guiding the Church is no longer there and God is no longer presiding over the Church. Thus it is in a state of being able to be corrupted by human error. That’s what I’ve always been under the impression it means basically.
 
Such things overlook the fact that God himself looks down upon the world.

To assume darkness has prevailed, is to deny faith in divine command.

I don’t doubt that many Popes have been corrupt, wicked and cruel individuals. Yet God plays his hand like a mastermind deals his cards at poker.

A brave fool indeed who assumes that anything is without purpose. Despite how gloomy it may appear.
 
The cool thing about the Church, she provides us definitions (bold mine):

From the CCC Catechism of the Catholic Church - Paragraph # 2089

2089 Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. “Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.”
 
It’s a good thing for us, Orthodox Christians, that we don’t have to deal with those kind of problems. To us only the Church itself is infallible and it doesn’t apply to a human being. Although, throughout the history of the Church we have had a large amount of the living saints. I guess only they could be considered infallible.
 
Last edited:
jas84173 said:
Annuario Pontificio attaches no consecutive numbers to the popes, stating that it is impossible to decide which side represented at various times the legitimate succession, in particular regarding Pope Leo VIII, Pope Benedict V and some mid-11th-century popes.
Click to expand...
Please tell us where you have gotten this information? Specifically that the “Annuario Pontificio” states “it is impossible to decide”.
jas84173 said:
If we don’t know, how do we not know the Church didn’t go into Apostasy during this time?
Click to expand...
a) We do know who the Popes are. We know who the anti-popes are. We know there were many times of interregnum.
b) The charism of infallibility lies with the Pope and the Magisterium. It does not mean they will teach anything, it means only that when they do teach it is without error.
jas84173 said:
It’s just possible the true Pope isn’t known yet we could be to this day adhering to events that an anti pope put into process?
Click to expand...
No, this is not possible. The Pope is the Bishop of Rome. We know who that is.

If your scruples, anxiety or OCD are acting up-- please get spiritual direction from your pastor.
 
Yah brother. I am being slowly drawn to Orthodoxy honestly. My ancestors would probably roll over in their graves but it seems to make more sense.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top