Papal Infallibility

[Hreysti]

Do you believe in Papal infallibility? I have been led to believe by Catholic friends and relatives that the Pope is the voice of God on earth, that everything he says is of God and that he is completely infallible.

I’d also like to know why women cannot become Pope?

If you DO believe in Papal infallibility can you please explain why. Any references to scripture would be useful too!

And for my final question, what is your opinion on the crimes committed by previous Popes?

 

[Godfollower]

Well, that’s quite a mouthful! Welcome to the forums, and let me see whether I can help.

Papal infallibility has been described in many, many ways. Some of them are even accurate. But most of them are wrong.

First, the charism of infallibility isn’t what you’ve been led to believe. The Pope isn’t perfect, not everything he says come from God, and not everything he says is infallible. The Holy Spirit guides the Church and prevents it – most especially the Pope – from announcing incorrect doctrines of faith and morals. That’s all. The Pope can’t predict the winning lottery number; if he was a poor speller before joining the priesthood, he’s still a poor speller; if he thinks the stock market will go up, he’d better consult an expert before investing, just like everyone else.

But, when he speaks ex cathedra ('from the chair" of Peter (a metaphor referring to his place as head of the Church under Christ)) about faith and morals, the Spirit prevents him from misleading Christians as to their duties to God and each other. This “infallibility” (perhaps better characterized as preservation from error) extends to the bishops of the Church when acting as a whole in communion with the Pope.

So, for example, when the Council of Jerusalem taught that circumcision was not required of Christians (see Acts chapter 15), the bishops gathered together could not teach incorrectly. And when the bishops gathered at the Council of Nicea and explained that Jesus was both fully human and fully divine, they taught infallibly – that is, they were incapable of teaching falsehood, just as when, years later, the bishops gathered at the Council of Constantinople and explained that the Holy Spirit is of one being with the Father and the Son.

As for Scriptural references, try Luke 10:16: “He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me.” Or Matthew 18:18: “Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.”

Or:

And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

Matthew 16:17-19.

But Jesus’ promise that the Spirit would guide and protect the Church does not mean that individual members of it would be free from sin. Popes make mistakes all the time. Some popes did terrible things and sinned grievously against God.

But, when they taught faith and morals in His name, they taught correctly.

 

[catholic1seeks]

Perhaps the following articles could be of assistance:

General

Papal Infallibility
catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp

Peter and the Papacy
catholic.com/library/Peter_and_the_Papacy.asp
From the Bible

The Papacy: How can one man be infallible?
socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/05/biblical-evidence-for-papal-and-church.html

50 New Testament Proofs for Petrine Primacy and the Papacy
socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/03/50-new-testament-proofs-for-petrine.html

What did the early Church believe? (Early Church Fathers)

The Authority of the Pope: Part One
catholic.com/library/Authority_of_the_Pope_Part_1.asp

Church Fathers & the Papacy (various articles)
cin.org/users/jgallegos/papacy.htm

 

[LBSDBS]

Do you believe in Papal infallibility? I have been led to believe by Catholic friends and relatives that the Pope is the voice of God on earth, that everything he says is of God and that he is completely infallible.

If that were true, the witch hunts would still be going on.

 

[catholic1seeks]

If that were true, the witch hunts would still be going on.

You sir have no clear conception of papal infallibility!
But on a more serious note, I always thought it was Protestants who were the notorious ones for the witch hunts. Any how, infallibility does NOT mean the inability to sin.

 

[tjm190]

You sir have no clear conception of papal infallibility!
But on a more serious note, I always thought it was Protestants who were the notorious ones for the witch hunts. Any how, infallibility does NOT mean the inability to sin.

He may or may not, but the OP’s notion is flawed- he merely called showed it’s flaw.

 

[LBSDBS]

You sir have no clear conception of papal infallibility!
But on a more serious note, I always thought it was Protestants who were the notorious ones for the witch hunts. Any how, infallibility does NOT mean the inability to sin.

Pope Innocent VIII instigated and authorized the Witch hunts and inquisitions in 1484, in which he (in larger words) stated that witchcraft is real. If everything a pope says and claims is real and infallible, then what he said still stands. Obviously, church teaching that the pope is infallible to that degree is a false rumor.

 

[1edyson]

Pope Innocent VIII instigated and authorized the Witch hunts and inquisitions in 1484, in which he (in larger words) stated that witchcraft is real. If everything a pope says and claims is real and infallible, then what he said still stands. Obviously, church teaching that the pope is infallible to that degree is a false rumor.

Please correct me if I’m wrong on this one, but aren’t the Saleem Witch Hunts, which I believe you are referring to, and the Inquisition, completely different events in multiple different times in History not even mildly related? Which inquisition are you referring to exactly? In addition didn’t the Saleem Witch Hunts happen in a mainly Protestant, Puritan to be exact controlled part of Colonial America?

Like people have also said, it sounds like your understanding of Papal Infallability is incorrect, have you looked in the CCC to find the correct teaching?

 

[tjm190]

Please correct me if I’m wrong on this one, but aren’t the Saleem Witch Hunts, which I believe you are referring to, and the Inquisition, completely different events in multiple different times in History not even mildly related? Which inquisition are you referring to exactly? In addition didn’t the Saleem Witch Hunts happen in a mainly Protestant, Puritan to be exact controlled part of Colonial America?

Like people have also said, it sounds like your understanding of Papal Infallability is incorrect, have you looked in the CCC to find the correct teaching?

No, the Church had it’s own witch hunt in the 15th century I believe

 

[chris_molter]

No, the Church had it’s own witch hunt in the 15th century I believe

This is correct

The Bull Summis Desiderantes Affectibus did nothing new except to ratify the extant inquisitors right to pursue heretics and witches of all social classes and urge the local Bishop’s cooperation in their work. There were no infallible pronouncements in the Bull, so to utilize it in that context is irrelevant.

It wasn’t a huge sea change in the way things were working in regards to the treatment of those suspected of heresy and/or witchcraft

 

[LBSDBS]

Please correct me if I’m wrong on this one, but aren’t the Saleem Witch Hunts, which I believe you are referring to, and the Inquisition, completely different events in multiple different times in History not even mildly related? Which inquisition are you referring to exactly? In addition didn’t the Saleem Witch Hunts happen in a mainly Protestant, Puritan to be exact controlled part of Colonial America?

Like people have also said, it sounds like your understanding of Papal Infallability is incorrect, have you looked in the CCC to find the correct teaching?

You need to remember that the Salem witch trials were conducted by folks who brought these superstitions over from Europe. I could be wrong, but I THINK that the witch hunts had recently or were in the process of being outlawed all over Europe at the time.

This DOES go to show that the Witch hunts were shorter lived then many people think. Up until the 1400s, witchcraft was almost considered a joke in Europe. It wasn’t until the late 1400s that the witch hunts really started as a church sanctioned practice and only lasted until the late 1600s as so. 200 years is still a long time, but not the 500-700 year period that many think. The witch hunts and inquisitions were one the same in many ways and circumstances.

Settling the new world was a big thing for protestants, who had a tendency to bring Europe’s dirty laundry with them, therefor western witch hunts are very strongly associated with protestants. In Europe, everyone was involved in this stuff. The witch hunts were politically motivated from the very beginning to the very end and not popular among serious Christians, Protestant and Catholic alike. Likewise, the Catholic church ended them almost as quickly as they started, but some of the protestants wanted to keep the ball rolling. It’s ironic that they became the very oppressors they broke away from Catholicism to get away from, though this is a normal pattern of human behavior.

That isn’t to say that the church was all evil at the time. Far from it. There was allot of mafia style rule at the time and much of it had penetrated the church clergy and corrupted some of the culture, but the good people never went away. It’s sort of like modern America. We have constitutionalists and we have liberals.

The Catholic church as a whole, had some remarkable history. They were at the cutting edge of science for a long time, were Europe’s primary source of education, took care of suffering folks of all kinds and were full of some incredibly great people of all walks of life like Queen Mary of Scots, Roger Bacon, St. Francis of Acici, Joan of Ark, Giovanni da Capistran, Leonardo da Vinci, and the list goes on and on.

As for papal infallibility, I USE to know the whole story, but have long since moved on to other things. I know that the church teachings suggest that certain conditions must be met for a statement by the pope to be considered infallible. Simply being the pope is not enough.

The Bull Summis Desiderantes Affectibus did nothing new except to ratify the extant inquisitors right to pursue heretics and witches of all social classes and urge the local Bishop’s cooperation in their work. There were no infallible pronouncements in the Bull, so to utilize it in that context is irrelevant.

It’s very relevant in the point I was making, for the very reason you brought up.

 

[chaunceygardner]

Hreysti asks:

"Do you believe in Papal infallibility? I have been led to believe by Catholic friends and relatives that the Pope is the voice of God on earth, that everything he says is of God and that he is completely infallible."

First, what you have been led to believe is wrong, but you are in good company, as many people are confused over what “infallible” means. It does not mean that the Pope is pure, sinless or perfect. It only refers to certain, specific, authoritative teachings.

Here is the definition provided in the Catechism:

"In extraordinary circumstances, as defined by the First Vatican Council, the pope exercises the gift of infallible teaching that has been given to the entire Church."

For more detail, here is what the Catholic Encyclopedia says:

"infallibility is not attributed to every doctrinal act of the pope, but only to his ex cathedra teaching".

It goes on to explain what “ex cathedra” entails:

"The pontiff must teach in his public and official capacity as pastor and doctor of all Christians"
“Then it is only when, in this capacity, he teaches some doctrine of faith or morals that he is infallible”
“Further it must be sufficiently evident that he intends to teach with all the fullness and finality of his supreme Apostolic authority”
"Finally for an ex cathedra decision it must be clear that the pope intends to bind the whole Church"

Note that the Bishops of the Church, gathered in council, can also make an infallible pronouncement.

Also note that the use of this “power” has been used sparingly. The last time, I believe, was when the Pope declared the Assumption of Mary to be divinely revealed dogma.

As to providing the basis for the doctrine of infallibility, and women becoming priests (much less Pope) I will leave that to the Apologists in the group.

As to believing, Catholics are required to do so. Whether they all truly do would be a tougher question to answer, as so few truly understand it. And those that do likely accept it in faith. As for me personally, I am not sure. I prefer having infallibility apply to the whole church or to councils of the church, over just one person, even if it is the Pope. So I am still working on that. Check back.

As to “crimes” committed by prior Popes, that is a sad, dark part of the church’s history. the Church readily admits that Popes can and do sin, that they are not infallible in their actions or even in all their words and thoughts. Who on this earth is?

 

[anon5216]

I, for one, definitely do not believe in infallibility (or inerrancy of scripture) - even as defined by the Church.