Judaism doesn't want an infallible Jewish 'pope'

[sirach2v4]

here’s a link to an online article about the election of Pope Francis and as a sidenote, the Jewish suspicion of anybody being infallible.

jewishworldreview.com/jeff/jacoby031813.php3

I tried this link and it seems to work, as long as the article may be available online.

The upshot is, that Judaism has studied within itself that they have had no leaders who they could qualify as infallible. There’s apparently an entire book of the Talmud that discusses leaders who have failed.

 

[sirach2v4]

The article in my previous post pointed out that when Francis was elected, he said “accepto” (I accept the election) and that made him infallible. Judaism is skeptical and perhaps even sarcastic about that.

 

[twopekinguys]

The article in my previous post pointed out that when Francis was elected, he said “accepto” (I accept the election) and that made him infallible. Judaism is skeptical and perhaps even sarcastic about that.

He is only “infallible” when speaking on Faith and Morals. Other than that, he is as human as the rest of us.

 

[Marie5890]

Boy, we really do a very poor job at explaining infallibility. Either that, or others are just really are bad at listening.

 

[Marie5890]

The article in my previous post pointed out that when Francis was elected, he said “accepto” (I accept the election) and that made him infallible. Judaism is skeptical and perhaps even sarcastic about that.

The article clearly doesnt understand the doctrine of infallibiltiy.

Clearly.

 

[bigdave3119]

why should we care? WE should not expectJewish or protestant churches to believe what we do otherwise they would be catholic!

 

[ephesians4]

The article in my previous post pointed out that when Francis was elected, he said “accepto” (I accept the election) and that made him infallible. Judaism is skeptical and perhaps even sarcastic about that.

To be fair, that was relatively charitable - compared to some people’s takes on it.

I have to say, it is not hard to be skeptical about infallibility. I have been examining it and associated concepts myself of late, in more detail than ever, frankly, and in spite of the kindness and help I have had from people at CAF, I must admit I am finding it difficult to put together a really rock solid argument for it that I can, with soundness and conviction, use to answer searching questions.

(and this is someone approaching it wanting a positive answer, and who thought Benedict XVI was the best thing since sliced bread )

 

[aprilfloyd]

here’s a link to an online article about the election of Pope Francis and as a sidenote, the Jewish suspicion of anybody being infallible.

jewishworldreview.com/jeff/jacoby031813.php3

I tried this link and it seems to work, as long as the article may be available online.

The upshot is, that Judaism has studied within itself that they have had no leaders who they could qualify as infallible. There’s apparently an entire book of the Talmud that discusses leaders who have failed.

Enjoyed reading. Thanks for posting

 

[sirach2v4]

The larger context of Jewish thought includes its acceptance of rabbinic Judaism (which is not embraced by all Jews).

The New Testament is, at some level, a commentary on the Old Testament. Correspondingly, the Talmud (“study”) is the Jewish version of the New Testament. And, not only has Judaism accepted (somehow, shrouded in history) the Masoretic canon of the Biblical text, but also the concept of rabbinic Judaism (and the principle of obeying the rabbi of your choice).

With due regard and respect to Jewish thought and Jewish people, I think there’s too many opinions within Judaism, opinions that are too far apart. E.g., as I understand it, the Orthodox accept the idea of the inspiration of the Torah, but the Reformed do not accept the inspiration of the Torah.

Certainly the primacy of the Bishop of Rome to settle disputes (historically) is a pre-cursor to the full-blown idea of infallibility. Jesus said, He who hears you, hears me.
That’s pretty authoritative.

 

[bzkoss236]

He is only “infallible” when speaking on Faith and Morals. Other than that, he is as human as the rest of us.

Not just that, but there are more ‘regulations’ as to what can be considered infallible. Such as, a statement on faith and morals that contradicts already existing doctrine is not considered infallible. And by extension, already existing dogma cannot be changed (for example, the Pope cannot say that God revealed to him that Christ was the Archangel Michael). And furthermore, what is considered infallible also has to already have a belief in the Church, so the Pope can’t make something up can call it doctrine (per my understanding of this restriction).

 

[Kaninchen]

here’s a link to an online article about the election of Pope Francis and as a sidenote, the Jewish suspicion of anybody being infallible.

jewishworldreview.com/jeff/jacoby031813.php3

I tried this link and it seems to work, as long as the article may be available online.

The upshot is, that Judaism has studied within itself that they have had no leaders who they could qualify as infallible. There’s apparently an entire book of the Talmud that discusses leaders who have failed.

I’d suggest that the crucial difference is that Christians tend to be focused on ‘correct belief’ and Jews on ‘correct action’ - theology on the one hand, jurisprudence on the other. This means that differences within each often seem incomprehensible to the other - if somebody tries to explain something like Catholic v’s Orthodox views of the filioque, I move into ‘eyes-glazing-over’ mode, for example, and I expect that Christians would find many of our rules of ‘Kosher’, for example, similarly mind-numbing.

So, the idea of authority (Why? How? What for?) has different meanings and consequences in the two religions.