NFP and contraception

[Good_Daughter]

Sigh, I knew someone would bring this up. Firstly it is an ad hominem circumstantial to simply reject an argument/view because of the motives of the person making them.

Secondly, he’s not making it all up, he cites sources for his claims down the bottom.

I could see your point about the ad hominem if this article were about stock tips, but this author is connected to groups who exist to oppose Catholic fundamentals. It is in their best interest to chip away at the Church and its membership.

If I could believe in this author’s objectivity, I would still say infallibility dates back to St. Peter (Matt.18:18) and the apostles (Luke 10:16). Truth is eternal, and is not ‘invented’ by its definition at a given time.

This article’s author and his sources assign political motives as a matter of opinion, and their theology is inaccurate. Those are the ‘ad hominem-free’ reasons I reject their arguments.

Yes, Casti Connubii - that comes from page 76 of:
Murphy, Paul I. and Arlington, R. Rene. (1983) La Popessa: The Controversial Biography of Sister Pasqualina, the Most Powerful Woman in Vatican History.

I came across it on this article:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernardino_Nogara (under the Pius XI section)

Interesting article. We can all say “tsk, tsk” as we’re running off to make sure our own investments are ‘clean’. Of course, any possible wrongdoing on the part of Church officials (who are perfectly capable of sin) doesn’t change the truth of Church teaching. Interesting how the Vatican may have stood to benefit financially by allowing contraception.

 

[Good_Daughter]

Clergy simply stated that there is nothing evil in nature of sexuality. However, if not done with exclusive desire for begetting, sex is selfish and evil.

Keeping sex procreative is a modern Catholic teaching as well. We have to understand what is meant by ‘procreative’ though to fully understand the teaching and how it hasn’t changed.

Easy. There is no other interpretation until 19th Century.

Did any ECF say, “I love *Song of Songs *but only as a religious passion.”?

That is like saying sleeping is not part of everyday life, since most of the time we are not in bed.

We spend a third of our life sleeping. Fertility is far more infrequent and many people suffer complete infertility.

Which is a) not the teaching of the Church Fathers b) absurd in case of NFP since the union of sperm and egg occurs only in case of failure of technique. Since failure is not what technique is used for, the whole idea of NFP is negation of procreative aspect of sexuality.

What did I say that contradicts Church Fathers? A couple is not responsible for uniting sperm and egg (that depends on nature/God) but for facilitating that union by not physically blocking conception.

 

[razredge]

The attempts by razredge to replace Christ’s authority conveyed on His Supreme Vicar with a Commission, and to foist Manichean ideas, the use of contraceptive magic and drugs as acceptable, a discredited theologian like Hans Kung, and to misrepresent St Augustine, are all travesties against the teaching from the beginning of the Catholic Church, and of truth. Now he prostitutes the understanding of a person with a God-given nature designed to follow the natural moral law.(#190)

And the Supreme Vican conveyed his authority to a Pontifical Commission which spent 3 years looking into the matter!

Plus, since when was the doctrine of contraception infallible? Was there an ex cathedra statement? As far as I know only the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception are doctrines that are infallibly defined.

You also seem to forget that the “Pope is not indefectible; he can make mistakes, including mistakes of judgment. Anyone who doubts this should remember the interchange reported by St Paul in Galatians where he corrects St Peter, the first Pope and head of the Apostles, publicly over an error of judgement.”

Pope Benedict himself affirmed this:

“The Pope is not an oracle; he is infallible in *very rare situations*, as we know; therefore, I share with you these questions, these problems."

So I do not apologize for being unable to accept your simplistic views on papal infallibility.

This article’s author and his sources assign political motives as a matter of opinion, and their theology is inaccurate. Those are the ‘ad hominem-free’ reasons I reject their arguments. Interesting article. We can all say “tsk, tsk” as we’re running off to make sure our own investments are ‘clean’. Of course, any possible wrongdoing on the part of Church officials (who are perfectly capable of sin) doesn’t change the truth of Church teaching. Interesting how the Vatican may have stood to benefit financially by allowing contraception.

It may well be opinion, but the historical facts and quotes from clergy (eg. Karol Woyjtyla’s statement) support that opinion don’t they?

I think the defense of papal infallibility theory makes a lot more sense than any genuine moral reasons for prohibiting artificial contraception - Especially since I have heard no good arguments why NFP is not considered contraception while everything else is.

The fact that the Pontifical Commision into Birth Control decided in favour of allowing contraception and gave excellent reasons for doing so, but had their teachings rejected when the minority report found it impossible to reconcile a change in Church stance with papal infallibility is pretty strong evidence in my book as to why it is primarily a political and theological question rather than a moral one.

That Pius XII allowed investment into birth control manufacturers (which only recently came into light with the release of documents from the Vatican Secret Archives) seems to indicate that the Pope had no great qualms in profiting from it - this along with the myriad views of clergy (JP1 for example saw no problem with birth control and was unhappy with Humanae Vitae) raises serious questions over whether birth control really is intrinsically evil like something like murder or abortion.

If I could believe in this author’s objectivity, I would still say infallibility dates back to St. Peter (Matt.18:18) and the apostles (Luke 10:16). Truth is eternal, and is not ‘invented’ by its definition at a given time.

Those two passages can be interpreted in a variety of ways eg. Luke 10:16 is probably referring to people who reject the Gospel, rejecting Christ - Matthew 18:18 is to do with the forgiveness of sins etc.

Certainly the early Church Fathers while acknolwedging the primacy of Peter did not espouse anything like papal infallibility - even Peter himself was rebuked by Paul on his reluctance to share a meal with Gentile Christians at Antioch.

 

[ddarko]

Plus, since when was the doctrine of contraception infallible? Was there an ex cathedra statement? As far as I know only the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception are doctrines that are infallibly defined.

Wow, this is like saying murder is not a sin because no teaching about it has been made dogmatically.

Thats not how things work. The section “THE CHURCH TEACHES INFALLIBLY ON FAITH AND MORALS” of the following document should help you better understand the Catholic faith.

ewtn.com/library/christ/confatal.txt

God Bless

 

[Abu]

razredge, #203
And the Supreme Vican (sic) conveyed his authority to a Pontifical Commission which spent 3 years looking into the matter!

Such repeated error is banal – as explained in #182 – a Pope cannot and never has “given” Christ’s mandate to Himself, as Supreme Vicar to teach on faith and morals, to any body or to any individual. The Commission was merely advisory. The effect of the dissenting errors was very much in evidence then as in your attitude now.

Plus, since when was the doctrine of contraception infallible? Was there an ex cathedra statement? As far as I know only the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception are doctrines that are infallibly defined.

You seem to know little of Vatican I’s Pastor Aeternus and the dogma of papal infallibility. You know little of Catholic dogma and doctrine.
See **The Ex Cathedra Status Of The Encyclical Humanae Vitae **by Fr Brian W. Harrison, O.S. at:
rtforum.org/lt/lt43.html
“all Catholics who understand the 1870 definition correctly see on the face of this document the radiance of the Pope’s intimate converse with God as he made this decision: the radiance of infallibility.”

The **Roman Theological Forum **is a great place for Catholics to confirm their faith:
rtforum.org/lt/index.html

the “Pope is not indefectible; he can make mistakes, including mistakes of judgment. Anyone who doubts this should remember the interchange reported by St Paul in Galatians where he corrects St Peter, the first Pope and head of the Apostles, publicly over an error of judgement.”

Your confusion seems to know no bounds. No one here or anywhere else claims that Popes cannot make mistakes.
Where you ridicule Christ, His Church and the Popes is to persist in your falsehood that Christ has not given His Popes the protection of the Holy Spirit from error when they teach the whole Church on faith and morals, as Supreme Pastors.

St Peter did not want to shock the Jewish converts who might not have grown out of their old ideas (that eating with Gentiles meant defilement), and Paul’s rightful rebuke shows his recognition of the stature of Peter’s authority and influence as supreme head of the Church.

Now pay attention to Gal 1:18 where St Paul carefully explains how he went to Jerusalem especially to consult St Peter on other matters.

 

[razredge]

You seem to know little of Vatican I’s Pastor Aeternus and the dogma of papal infallibility. You know little of Catholic dogma and doctrine.
See **The Ex Cathedra Status Of The Encyclical Humanae Vitae **by Fr Brian W. Harrison, O.S. at:
rtforum.org/lt/lt43.html
“all Catholics who understand the 1870 definition correctly see on the face of this document the radiance of the Pope’s intimate converse with God as he made this decision: the radiance of infallibility.”

The **Roman Theological Forum **is a great place for Catholics to confirm their faith:
rtforum.org/lt/index.html

Ok, so there is dispute among theologians whether Humanae Vitae is infallible or not and the Church itself has never elucidated it’s position.

It would seem that the teaching is not ‘infallible’ since apparently “the Holy Spirit works in the body of the Church, as sensus fidelium, to ensure that dogmatic teachings proclaimed to be infallible will be received by all Catholics” - now as we all know that is clearly not the case given some 95% of Catholic women have used birth control and the amount of dissent within the Church among lay people, theologians and clergy alike - so the sensus fidelium is not there.

And anyway, my whole point was that HV was promulgated primarily to protect the doctrine of papal infalliblity, which would have been called into question if the Church had reversed the stance of Pius XI with Casti Connubi. So the fallibility of HV doesn’t come into that.

Your confusion seems to know no bounds. No one here or anywhere else claims that Popes cannot make mistakes.
.

Well, you certainly seem to take the tone that whatever the Pope says is automatically correct! Your tone and constant appeals to authority certainly don’t seem in line with Pope Benedict’s statement that the Pope is not an oracle and is infallible only on very rare occasions.

Where you ridicule Christ, His Church and the Popes is to persist in your falsehood that Christ has not given His Popes the protection of the Holy Spirit from error when they teach the whole Church on faith and morals, as Supreme Pastors.

I don’t know about that, Christ certainly didn’t prevent the Church from allowing slavery, antisemitism, calling Crusades, burning heretics at the stake, canonizing non-existent saints, condemning science (or electing corrupt Popes for that matter).

So if all these past blunders are to co-exist with ‘the protection of the Holy Spirit from error when they teach the whole Church on faith and morals’ we would either have to say that Pope’s are very rarely infallible as Benedict states or that they are not infallible at all.

St Peter did not want to shock the Jewish converts who might not have grown out of their old ideas (that eating with Gentiles meant defilement), and Paul’s rightful rebuke shows his recognition of the stature of Peter’s authority and influence as supreme head of the Church.

No one’s doubting the primacy of Peter - I was just saying that Peter here did not know the correct application of faith and morals and had to be rebuked by Paul

When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group.

Peter was afraid of the potential fallout from the Jewish Christians led by James the Just if he was seen as sharing meals with Gentiles.

 

[Abu]

razredge
Ok, so there is dispute among theologians whether Humanae Vitae is infallible or not and the Church itself has never elucidated it’s position.
It would seem that the teaching is not ‘infallible’ since apparently “the Holy Spirit works in the body of the Church, as sensus fidelium, to ensure that dogmatic teachings proclaimed to be infallible will be received by all Catholics”

No it’s NOT O.K. When they dissent theologians don’t count for faithful Catholics . The Popes are very clear on the infallibility of the definitions in both *Casti Connubii *and Humanae Vitae – you obviously have ignored Pastor Aeternus from Ecumenical Council Vatican I, which dissenters do.

No, the infallible doctrine against contraception is not a dogma – learn the difference.

No, the Holy Spirit will not “ensure” (force) anything against free will – you don’t understand anything about the sensus fidelium of Vatican II. The pastime of giving what purports to be a quote without a source seems endemic to you.

 

[razredge]

No it’s NOT O.K. When they dissent theologians don’t count for faithful Catholics . The Popes are very clear on the infallibility of the definitions in both *Casti Connubii *and Humanae Vitae – you obviously have ignored Pastor Aeternus from Ecumenical Council Vatican I, which dissenters do.

No, the infallible doctrine against contraception is not a dogma – learn the difference.

No, the Holy Spirit will not “ensure” (force) anything against free will – you don’t understand anything about the sensus fidelium of Vatican II. The pastime of giving what purports to be a quote without a source seems endemic to you.

What about the bishops and cardinals who also do? Note the many dissenting statements from bishops conferences around the world, Pope JPI himself dissented privately. There was also a priest survey done here where only 19% of priests thought artificial contraception among married couples was a sin. Then there’s the fact that 98% of American Catholics have used contraception
And that doesn’t include only the ‘cultural Catholics’

So there are a lot of dissenters, indeed it would seem that most of the Church is heretical

And I took the ‘sensus fidelium’ thing from the first paragraph here, it might be wrong:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility

Either way, I agree with Pope Benedict’s far more reasonable understanding of papal infallibility.

 

[Abu]

razredge, #208
I took the ‘sensus fidelium’ thing from the first paragraph here, it might be wrong:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility
I agree with Pope Benedict’s far more reasonable understanding of papal infallibility

Why would a Catholic seek a dodgy interpretation when Vatican II’s documents are readily available? You’re obviously not serious about Christ’s teaching.

What is the source (reference) of the purported quote from the Pope?

 

[razredge]

Why would a Catholic seek a dodgy interpretation when Vatican II’s documents are readily available? You’re obviously not serious about Christ’s teaching.

What is the source (reference) of the purported quote from the Pope?

Because wikipedia is far easier to read than the verbiage of official Church documents!

Apparently it is from the very first public statement he made after his elevation, an impromptu address to priests, deacons and religious in the Diocese of Val d’Aosta on 29th July 2005

Reproduced by Zenit at Code: ZE05072909

superflumina.org/benedict_muslims.html#_ftn2

 

[ddarko]

Ok, so there is dispute among theologians whether Humanae Vitae is infallible or not and the Church itself has never elucidated it’s position.

Did you miss my post #204?

The church has nothing elucidate one. Contraception has always been infallibly held as immoral. Please refer to my previous post #204 (linked above).

God Bless

 

[Chrono13]

Keeping sex procreative is a modern Catholic teaching as well. We have to understand what is meant by ‘procreative’ though to fully understand the teaching and how it hasn’t changed.

Previous ethical approach didn’t see procreation as something that needs to be kept, but intended in order for act to be sinless.

Did any ECF say, “I love *Song of Songs *but only as a religious passion.”

Even stronger. Origen claimed allegorical interpretation is the real one, but reading can trigger lustful thoughts. People were advised not to read Song of Songs until they gain control of their sensual desires.

Second Council of Constantinople decided that whoever interprets Song of Songs as celebration of marital love is excommunicated. One of many proofs what was really taught about sex.

?We spend a third of our life sleeping. Fertility is far more infrequent and many people suffer complete infertility.

But woman is not considered infertile if she is in infertile period. She is infertile if she can’t beget a child due to reasons which have nothing to do with her cycle- such as age, or even injury.

What did I say that contradicts Church Fathers? A couple is not responsible for uniting sperm and egg (that depends on nature/God) but for facilitating that union by not physically blocking conception.

This is against Church Fathers. They claimed , since sex is only for procreation, that procreation (“uniting sperm and egg”) must be the only desire of couple during sex- in order for act to be moral.

 

[Chrono13]

Did you miss my post #204?

The church has nothing elucidate one. Contraception has always been infallibly held as immoral. Please refer to my previous post #204 (linked above).

God Bless

As was mentioned several times during this discussion, the reasons why contraception was considered immoral in the past are different from those addressed by 20th century documents. The stoic approach disallowed NFP, since procreation was the only nature of the act.

This difference makes it difficult for Fr. John Hardon to speak of universal magisterium, since bishops in the history have no universal approach to this issue. To ignore the stoicism, is to ignore the teaching of the previous popes, and sacrifices of layman who accepted their requests.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Second Council of Constantinople decided that whoever interprets Song of Songs as celebration of marital love is excommunicated.

Do you know where in the canons that anathema is located? I didn’t see it after perusing the text.

Second Council of Constantinople.

.

 

[razredge]

As was mentioned several times during this discussion, the reasons why contraception was considered immoral in the past are different from those addressed by 20th century documents. The stoic approach disallowed NFP, since procreation was the only nature of the act.

This difference makes it difficult for Fr. John Hardon to speak of universal magisterium, since bishops in the history have no universal approach to this issue. To ignore the stoicism, is to ignore the teaching of the previous popes, and sacrifices of layman who accepted their requests.

Gee, you’re good at this Chrono!

 

[Abu]

razredge, #210
wikipedia is far easier to read than the verbiage of official Church documents

Such ridicule eloquently explains your confusion and misrepresentation throughout as – who cares that Christ expressly founded His Church and what Christ really taught! Why bother to call yourself a Catholic – you only mislead?

Another example of omission is from the article from which you gave Pope Benedict’s quotation, for Michael Baker states:
“A Pope is infallible. That is, when teaching definitively in faith or morals and intending to bind the faithful, he cannot err. That charism is given him by Almighty God not, as the ignorant think, for his own benefit, but for the benefit of God’s faithful people. So does Almighty God give them a guarantee that they may know the truth in matters essential for their salvation.”

When a Pope is infallible is in the dogma in Vatican I’s *Pastor Aeternus *which, as you have admitted seems a bit beyond your comprehension due to your mindset.

For the interested reader, the rare occasions of the exercise of papal infallibility:
From Vatican I (Pastor Aeternus), for infallibility to be exercised the Pope must teach
(a) ex cathedra (from the Chair of Peter), that is as Shepherd and Teacher of all Christians,
(b) speaking with Peter’s apostolic authority to the whole Church,
(c) defining a doctrine of faith and morals.

So the Pope’s ‘ex cathedra’ definitions may be either of revealed dogma, to be believed with divine faith, or of other truths necessary for guarding and expounding revealed truth. Vatican Council II and the post-conciliar Magisterium have explicitly affirmed that both ecclesial and papal infallibility extend to the secondary doctrinal truths necessary for guarding and expounding revelation. Thus Humanae Vitae (Encyclical) against contraception, and *Ordinatio Sacerdotalis *(Apostolic Epistle) on male-only priests, contain infallible definitions, to remove all doubt.

Thus, no dogma has to be affirmed, nor anyone anathematized, nor the word “define” or “definition” be used for an infallible papal teaching – only that the Pope is handing down a certain, decisive judgment that a point of doctrine on faith or morals is true and its contrary false.

The studied commentary is at: rtforum.org/lt/lt43.html
**The Ex Cathedra Status Of The Encyclical Humanae Vitae by Fr Brian W. Harrison, O.S. **

 

[razredge]

Such ridicule eloquently explains your confusion and misrepresentation throughout as – who cares that Christ expressly founded His Church and what Christ really taught! Why bother to call yourself a Catholic – you only mislead?

Well I don’t have the time to read through them - and it’s a bit of a stretch to say that Christ taught that contraception was wrong but NFP was ok.

For the interested reader, the rare occasions of the exercise of papal infallibility:
From Vatican I (Pastor Aeternus), for infallibility to be exercised the Pope must teach
(a) ex cathedra (from the Chair of Peter), that is as Shepherd and Teacher of all Christians,
(b) speaking with Peter’s apostolic authority to the whole Church,
(c) defining a doctrine of faith and morals.

So the Pope’s ‘ex cathedra’ definitions may be either of revealed dogma, to be believed with divine faith, or of other truths necessary for guarding and expounding revealed truth. Vatican Council II and the post-conciliar Magisterium have explicitly affirmed that both ecclesial and papal infallibility extend to the secondary doctrinal truths necessary for guarding and expounding revelation. Thus Humanae Vitae (Encyclical) against contraception, and *Ordinatio Sacerdotalis *(Apostolic Epistle) on male-only priests, contain infallible definitions, to remove all doubt.

Thus, no dogma has to be affirmed, nor anyone anathematized, nor the word “define” or “definition” be used for an infallible papal teaching – only that the Pope is handing down a certain, decisive judgment that a point of doctrine on faith or morals is true and its contrary false.

The studied commentary is at: rtforum.org/lt/lt43.html
**The Ex Cathedra Status Of The Encyclical Humanae Vitae by Fr Brian W. Harrison, O.S. **

Thanks for summarising, - well I don’t agree with such a widespread application of papal infallibility - you seem to say that every encyclical or teaching promulgated by the Pope is infallible.

This does not square with Benedict’s statement either

 

[Abu]

razredge, #217
I don’t agree with such a widespread application of papal infallibility.

That’s why you are a dissenter. Further, Pastor Aeternus is clear, and there is nothing widespread about the dogma, it is very precise.

you seem to say that every encyclical or teaching promulgated by the Pope is infallible.

False. I say nothing of the kind, the dogma is very accurate, and the infallible papal definitions against contraception this century are in Casti Connubii, 1930, and Humanae Vitae, 1968 (required because of the intrusion of the Pill). Thus papal infallible definitions on faith and morals are infrequent, one meaning of “rare”.

The other papal infallible definition is in the Apostolic Epistle on male-only priests, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, 1994, because of the dissent since Vatican II. The case of Bishop Morris in Australia is illustrative of that need, and the dissent thereof.

Readers can check tinyurl.com/2qon2 where you shall find Ad Tuendam Fidem.

The CCC #88 (1997) clearly combines exactly with Blessed John Paul’s Motu Proprio (= on his own authority) Apostolic Letter Ad Tuendam Fidem, 1998 (ATF), which requires the assent of divine and Catholic faith to believe (credenda sunt) dogmas (a category one truth) (#750.1).

A category 2 truth requires the assent of ecclesial faith, as a secondary truth, “proposed definitively” (definitive proponuntur) to be “firmly embraced and held” (now Canon 750.2). In fact, the 1983 revision of Canon Law had replaced in #749.3 “dogmatically declared or defined” with “infallibly defined”, thus NOT expressing a limitation of infallibility to dogmas. ATF better enables Canon Law to apply to the understanding of infallibility with the Profession of Faith covering the two categories of infallible doctrine.

The category 3 truths are non-definitive (non-infallible) and require intellectual assent (“loyal submission of the will and intellect”, Vatican II, *Lumen Gentium *25), not an assent of faith.

So you see that intellectual assent is mandated for non-infallible doctrine. Christ did not leave His Church as an orphan, but protected by the Holy Spirit from teaching error.

adoremus.org/RatCom1098.html
Cardinal Ratzinger on Ad Tuendam Fidem
Doctrinal Commentary on the Concluding Formula of the Professio fidei8.
With regard to the nature of the assent owed to the truths set forth by the Church as divinely revealed (those of the first paragraph) or to be held definitively (those of the second paragraph), it is important to emphasize that there is no difference with respect to the full and irrevocable character of the assent which is owed to these teachings. The difference concerns the supernatural virtue of faith: in the case of truths of the first paragraph, the assent is based directly on faith in the authority of the Word of God (doctrines de fide credenda); in the case of the truths of the second paragraph, the assent is based on faith in the Holy Spirit’s assistance to the Magis

 

[Good_Daughter]

It may well be opinion, but the historical facts and quotes from clergy (eg. Karol Woyjtyla’s statement) support that opinion don’t they?

Lots of people (even clergy) sharing an opinion doesn’t necessarily make it a fact. Woyjtyla was using rhetoric to make a point. He didn’t actually believe that God was on the side of the Protestant churches when Catholicism taught against contraception.

I think the defense of papal infallibility theory makes a lot more sense than any genuine moral reasons for prohibiting artificial contraception - Especially since I have heard no good arguments why NFP is not considered contraception while everything else is.

What are these moral reasons you’ve heard for the Church prohibiting artificial contraception?

The fact that the Pontifical Commision into Birth Control decided in favour of allowing contraception and gave excellent reasons for doing so, but had their teachings rejected when the minority report found it impossible to reconcile a change in Church stance with papal infallibility is pretty strong evidence in my book as to why it is primarily a political and theological question rather than a moral one.

Or the Commission’s statement lacked any good reasons for allowing contraception. They essentially said that NFP separates sex and reproduction (almost accurate-it really p(name removed by moderator)oints the times when nature has separated the two), that birth control should be used with good reason, and restated the commonly held Protestant view that marriage needs to be fruitful only in a general sense. They just didn’t seem to grasp the theology behind the Catholic position, and the Commission’s statement-wow, talk about verbiage!

That Pius XII allowed investment into birth control manufacturers (which only recently came into light with the release of documents from the Vatican Secret Archives) seems to indicate that the Pope had no great qualms in profiting from it - this along with the myriad views of clergy (JP1 for example saw no problem with birth control and was unhappy with Humanae Vitae) raises serious questions over whether birth control really is intrinsically evil like something like murder or abortion.

Call me a sceptic, but there may be more to these stories than what’s available on Wikipedia. If these popes sinned and doubted, does it change the truth? Granted, if your belief in papal infallibility is sketchy, you may find truth changes.

Those two passages can be interpreted in a variety of ways eg. Luke 10:16 is probably referring to people who reject the Gospel, rejecting Christ - Matthew 18:18 is to do with the forgiveness of sins etc.

Sure, I was just pointing out that Church leaders have been given divine authority since biblical times. The concept of an infallible leader is not without prescedent.

Certainly the early Church Fathers while acknolwedging the primacy of Peter did not espouse anything like papal infallibility - even Peter himself was rebuked by Paul on his reluctance to share a meal with Gentile Christians at Antioch.

Peter’s conduct was not perfect but his infallible teaching is documented in two NT epistles: catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp.

 

[Abu]

razredge, #203
Certainly the early Church Fathers while acknolwedging the primacy of Peter did not espouse anything like papal infallibility

False.
The Fathers fell into no error here.
Your first error is in disregarding the mandate of Jesus, the Son of God, in installing Peter as the first Pope with His authority.
All four promises to Peter alone:
“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).

Your second error is in disregarding history:
It’s interesting also that Arnold Lunn in Now I See, Sheed & Ward, 1955) could quote from the Anglican Vicar of Oddington, Rev S Herbert Scott, that St Peter and his successors were recognised as the supreme judges in matters of faith by a long succession of great Eastern saints, Ignatius, Irenaeus, Denys, Athanasius, Chrysostom, and others.

Scott quotes from the Graeco-Slav Liturgy at the Council of Nicea addressing the Pope, St Sylvester, who was not himself present: “…thou didst appear as a pillar of fire, snatching the faithful from Egyptian error (sc. Arius) and continually leading them with unerring teachings to divine light.” [Op. cit. Lunn, p 218-9]. Sir Arnold remarks that "This unwilling tribute from the Greek Church of today to the ‘unerring teaching’ of the Roman Pope is most impressive."