S
souldiver
Guest
Doesn’t that makes the Pope inhuman? Or maybe there’s some good explanation to it?
Maybe the Catholic church should change "Papal infallibility" doctrine
- Status
V
Vico
Guest
It is not personal, but pertains to the office.
S
souldiver
Guest
@(name removed by moderator)
Well I checked out what infallibility means in an online dictionary here merriam-webster.com/dictionary/infallible
One of the meanings is “incapable of error”, how about it?
Well I checked out what infallibility means in an online dictionary here merriam-webster.com/dictionary/infallible
One of the meanings is “incapable of error”, how about it?
S
souldiver
Guest
Hmm… I find it hard to understand.
V
Vico
Guest
Is this any easier to understand?
The rejection of papal infallibility by “Bible Christians” stems from their view of the Church. They do not think Christ established a visible Church, which means they do not believe in a hierarchy of bishops headed by the pope. …
It is the Holy Spirit who prevents the pope from officially teaching error, and this charism follows necessarily from the existence of the Church itself. If, as Christ promised, the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church then it must be protected from fundamentally falling into error and thus away from Christ. It must prove itself to be a perfectly steady guide in matters pertaining to salvation. …
Since Christ said the gates of hell would not prevail against his Church (Matt. 16:18b), this means that his Church can never pass out of existence. But if the Church ever apostasized by teaching heresy, then it would cease to exist; because it would cease to be Jesus’ Church. Thus the Church cannot teach heresy, meaning that anything it solemnly defines for the faithful to believe is true. This same reality is reflected in the Apostle Paul’s statement that the Church is “the pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15). If the Church is the foundation of religious truth in this world, then it is God’s own spokesman. As Christ told his disciples: “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me” (Luke 10:16).
catholic.com/tracts/papal-infallibility
S
souldiver
Guest
@Vico
Thanks for helping. For what I understood is that Jesus, according to the Bible said it to the Apostles so it must be followed, right?
Thanks for helping. For what I understood is that Jesus, according to the Bible said it to the Apostles so it must be followed, right?
G
GEddie
Guest
Papal infallibility is a power of the Holy Spirit given to the one who holds the office of Pope.. Not to the person himself. So it makes nobody “inhuman.”
When B16 resigned the papacy, as an example, IIUC, he also resigned the power of speaking infallibly for the Church.
ICXC NIKA.
When B16 resigned the papacy, as an example, IIUC, he also resigned the power of speaking infallibly for the Church.
ICXC NIKA.
P
ProdglArchitect
Guest
Actually, Christ never explicitly outlined the doctrine of Papal Infallibility, but He did promise the guidance and protection of the Holy Spirit. From the beginning of the Church it was understood that this pertained to spiritual matters, and that the Holy Spirit would guide the Church to make the proper theological and moral declarations. During the early 1900’s, as the result of widespread misinformation and misunderstanding about the teaching, it became necessary to make a dogmatic proclamation on the subject clearly outlining its meaning and intent. While Christ never specifically used the word infallible, at least as far as we know, the intent is there, and the writings of the earliest Church fathers, and even the books of the New Testament, uphold this understanding.
You’ll find throughout the history of the Church that she doesn’t outright define dogmas until it becomes necessary to do so. Earlier in Church history there wasn’t the modern dissent on the matter of Sacred Tradition; however, with the advent of Protestantism and their outright rejection of Tradition, it has become increasingly necessary to fully define the finer points of Catholic due to increased ignorance of them.
M
MelCath
Guest
In explaining it, i am explaining it within a christian framework because the validity of the bible and the authority of Christ need another whole thread.
The church from the biblical point of view ‘is the pillar and foundation of truth’ (1 Tim 3:15) and its unity is based on unity of doctrine (1 cor. 1:10) which is maintained by the holy spirit (john 16:13) but the Church’s unity cannot base itself on unity of doctrine if the doctrine is unintelligible and allowed to be up to the interpretation of its members for because of false prophets, Christians will always make error. So the Church then needs a visible principle of doctrinal confirmation
Christ, knowing that the Church would need this visible principle and keeper of infallible doctrine, gives us it in the ministry and office of St. Peter. He shows this by saying to St. Peter “But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren.”
And then he identified St. Peter with:
- inspiation from God — “because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven.”
- Access to the kingdom of God—“I give you the keys to the Kingdom”
- the Indestructibility of the Church—“the gates of hell shall not prevail”
These qualities where given to St. Peters successors in the bishop of Rome Insofar as they speak from that position about matters of the church to the church
but the office of St. Peter is shared also by all bishops in unison and the whole church united with the Pope
did that help?
M
Memaw
Guest
That’ll never happen. Infallibility of the Pope will be here till the end of time. There is a very good explanation if you care to learn what it is. God Bless, Memaw
Z
Zachary
Guest
Papal infallibility doesn’t mean the Pope can never be wrong about ANYTHING.
If he made a proclamation that the Boston Red Sox were the a holy team and should be revered as a model for all teams, a) he’d be wrong and b) Catholics would be free dismiss it.
The church doesn’t need to change this doctrine. If people understood what it actually was, I don’t think it would be such a big deal. When speaking on behalf of Jesus on faith and morals, the Pope is protected from error by the Holy Spirit. But, when talking about his favorite sitcom or how he prefers his potatoes…
If he made a proclamation that the Boston Red Sox were the a holy team and should be revered as a model for all teams, a) he’d be wrong and b) Catholics would be free dismiss it.
The church doesn’t need to change this doctrine. If people understood what it actually was, I don’t think it would be such a big deal. When speaking on behalf of Jesus on faith and morals, the Pope is protected from error by the Holy Spirit. But, when talking about his favorite sitcom or how he prefers his potatoes…
M
Murmurs
Guest
I don’t for one moment mean to be anything other than a pedant here, basically - I don’t question for one moment the doctrine, nor remotely hold the belief I am about to present, I just wondered what people thought…
…According to the above (in bold), the Church could teach heresy and would cease to the The Church, but it wouldn’t immediately go into institutional meltdown (ie. the Holy Father could tomorrow morning issue some insane heretical doctrinal statement, but the catholic church as an institution wouldn’t crumble; the dome of St Peter’s wouldn’t fall in, etc). So presumably (?) The Church would be found to be constituted in something else…but how would we know this had happened?
The proof of infallibility is infuriatingly circular logic, is my point; we know the pope (under certain circumstances) is infallible because Pius IX said so (and previously other theologians had argued)… I think the doctrine to be entirely correct, but even when explained to non-catholics (or even plenty of actual catholics) correctly (ie not confusing it with impeccability etc), it still has this circularity at its heart. The issue of infallibility is extremely awkward, to say the least: “the Church’s doctrine is correct because the Church can’t teach error, because the Church says so in its teachings…”
I’ve been confronted with people making this kind of argument to me, and I’ve always been stumped as to how to respond. Does anyone have any suggestions?
H
hadulzo
Guest
souldiver thank you for asking the question. I hope these learned people gave you and answer, This is a great place to ask those questions. there is another website that has lots of atheists asking questions. In case you can’t get your answer here, try this site.
strangenotions.com/
strangenotions.com/
S
spiderweb
Guest
If the Pope ever issued some insane proclamation to be believed by the whole church, then that would make Jesus a liar. I don’t believe Jesus is a liar, therefore I don’t believe the Pope will ever issue such a statement.
We do not know the Pope is infallible because of Pope Pius IX, Pope Pius IX was only restating what Jesus had already said, that he would be with them always, that the Holy Spirit would guide them to all truth, and that the gates of hell would not prevail against the church. If the Pope made some insane claim, then that would prove that Jesus lied about the being with them for all days, that the Holy Spirit did not guide them to the truth, and that the Gates of hell did prevail against the church.
It is not circular reasoning, the reasoning starts with Jesus Christ, and is clarified by Pope Pius IX and Vatican Council I, and because it came from Jesus, we can trust and give full assent that the clarification is true.
C
commenter
Guest
The alternate arguments have all been disproved, leaving the Magisterium.
1.) Sola Scriptura is self-contradictory at many points. "We rely on the Bible alone (can’t find THAT doctrine in Scripture). We rely on this canon of the NT (which some anonymous donor chose for us). The Bible alone is infallible when rightly divided (in other words, we decide which Bible verses apply to each topic, and how to interpret them - and we reject all those other Sola Scriptura groups that rely on the wrong verses, and interpret them wrongly).
2). Sola Scriptura plus Tradition: Stronger than Sola Scriptura alone; but who decides which 1% of traditions is authoritative, or “Tradition”, and the other 99% not authoritative? Who has authority to admit or rule out, in 2015, new traditions or Scriptures?
Many churches guided by #1 or #2 in recent years rejected much doctrine and morality that their predecessors regarded as sacred. The argument for the Catholic position is thus much stronger now than in 1965; the alternative “steering mechanisms” were found to be much less reliable than was thought. With no Magisterium some churches have added questionable “traditions” and now adding new(!) NT “scriptures”.
3.) Scripture, Tradition, Magisterium: the Catholic position. The 3 elements reinforce each other. Without infallibility, there is no secure canon of Scripture or Tradition. But the living Magisterium relies on Scripture and Tradition. So it’s not circular reasoning, it’s like a balanced 3-legged stool, where all 3 legs are visible and accounted for, and the alternatives mostly disproved.
G
GEddie
Guest
Who is adding to the NT and what was added??
M
Murmurs
Guest
Between the two of you, an awesome (and somewhat clearer) way of thinking about things - and perhaps more importantly explaining them to others should the situation arise.
Thanks very much
C
commenter
Guest
There are a few extremely liberal groups pushing for the addition of certain books like the Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Mary, and others. The most influential movement is “A New New Testament” published a couple years ago, which added those, and several other books. This New Testament does not put them into an appendix, but inserts them among the traditional 27.
For instance, Thomas is the first gospel, Matthew is second(!) On the Committee are mostly liberal Protestant scholars and denominational leaders, for instance the president of the United Church of Christ, a couple Protestant bishops, and others, some of whom are prominent in the “History Channel, NY Times” circuit. I believe only relatively few liberal Protestant congregations have incorporated them into worship services and Sunday School thus far, but I fear this movement will spread throughout much of Protestantism eventually.
The Mormons added to the NT, but they kept the King James canon intact, with the new books in a separate volume. This is different, as they insert gospels among gospels, epistles among epistles, etc. This is not being done by an unpopular group wandering off to Utah, these are influential people with denominational pull, media and university connections. New scriptures were “voted” in by ballot. In the future, I predict some of Paul’s letters, and parts of the familiar 4 gospels, may be voted out. Some churches are using New Testaments which omit certain passages about homosexual actions being bad.
Prayer is needed.
A
Abu
Guest
….
There is nothing circular about the reality of papal infallibility which was given by Christ to St Peter and his successor popes.
Incorrect reasoning by those who don’t know.
The impossibility of teaching error to the whole Church was given by Christ Himself recorded by His Apostles and disciples:
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
“I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." ( Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19)
Sole authority:
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).
The Council of Constance (1414-18), in its fourth and fifth sessions, declared for the superiority of council over Pope. However, these decisions never received papal approbation.
The understanding of papal inallibility was stated as a dogma when challenged by Gallicanism – the conciliarist theory lived on for hundreds of years. Conciliarism was formally condemned by the First Vatican Council (1869-70), which defined papal primacy, declaring that the Pope had "full and supreme jurisdiction over the universal Church, not only in things which belong to faith and morals, but also in those which relate to the discipline and government of the Church spread throughout the world.
With regard to both Popes and Councils it is the infallibility of the Church which is actually the decisive factor, the definition of Vatican I is very precise on this point and it uses very tightly constructed language. The doctrine must be of faith or morals and must be proposed as divinely revealed and to be held as such by all the faithful.
In more recent times, conciliarism has been renewed by those who appeal to a “magisterium of theologians” or “consensus of the people of God” against ordinary or even solemn teachings of the popes. (Etym. Latin concilium, council, assembly for consultation.)
Modern Catholic Dictionary by Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.
therealpresence.org/cgi-bin/getdefinition.pl
- Status