Papal Infallibility

[dano]

Axiombob:

Someone, please help me with this quote. I am considering conversion to Catholocism, but my protestant friends direct me to things for which I have no answer. The following quote is designed to demonstrate why Papal Infallibility cannot be true.

“Victor I (189-199) first approved of Montanism in 192, and then later condemned it. Honorius (625-638) taught the heresy of Monotheism, which denied that Christ simultaneously possessed two separate natures-human and divine. He was later condemned as a heretic by the Third Council of Constantinople in 680. Marcellinus (296-304) entered the Temple of Vesta and offered incense to the pagan goddess. Liberius (352-366) consented to the condemnation of Athanasius, the ‘great defender of the Deity of Christ,’ and made a profession of Arianism that he might be recalled from exile and reinstated in his seat. …Gregory I (590) declared that anyone who believed it was not necessary to take both the bread and wine at Mass was to be excommunicated; Innocent III (1215) stated that anyone who believed it was necessary was to be excommunicated. Paschal II (1099-1118) and Eugene III (1145-1153) authorized dueling; Julius II (1503-1513) and Pius VII (1800-1823) forbade it. Hadrian II (867-872) declared civil marriages to be valid; Pius VII condemned them. Sixtus V (1585-1590) published an edition of the Bible and recommended it to be read; Pius VII condemned the reading of it, claiming the edition to be full of errors. Clement XIV (1769-1774) abolished the order of the Jesuits; Paul III (1534-1549) permitted it and Pius VII re-established it. The list of such errors is quite lengthy, but the foregoing examples sufficiently prove our point.”

from allaboutreligion.org/Pope-John-Paul-II.htm

Hi,
Before you can defend any of this, you have to have a good understanding of infallibility. MOST Catholics (vast majority) do not. Karl Keating handles this very well in Catholicism and Fundamentalism . Well worth the read.

    On your list are: things which are not to be considered infallable teaching whether or not it was spoken by a Pope or not (when he was Pope).  Some are from Popes BEFORE they were Pope - therefore NOT infallible.  Also a Pope can have inaccurate theories, intrepretations, etc, which he can speak on or even publish in books, but do not fall under infallibility umbrella.  In these cases, the Ho;y Spirit is PREVENTING him from teaching it excathedra - i.e. telling Catholics that the must believe it.  Also, some are just flat out made up - made up a while back by someone and passed it around as authoritative by individuals who are genuine in their beliefs, but don't take the time to research the accuracy of what someone tells them.
     
 Infallibility is a "negative" protection by the Holy Spirit.  I prevents the Holy Father from teaching something incorrect regarding Faith and Morals only when speaking ex-Cathedra.  It is NOT inspiration as in the insipired writers of sacred scripture.  The Holy Spirit does not tell the Pope what to say or when to say it.  The example of the Sixtus publishing a Bible which was then condemed for errors is a classic example of a poor understanding of infallibility.  The Pope is not infallible in the editing of a Bible - he will make errors.  The Holy Spirit will not point out typos, mistranslations, etc. to the Pope or prevent him from publishing it.  

  My reading of the examples are that they are the same incorrect ones that are always cited due to the fact that most are drawn from the same error filled publication by Lorraine Boettner - "Roman Catholicism"  

Good Luck,
Read KK's book and/or search the CA website.  It's chock full!

Dano

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Scott Waddell:

While infallibility is certainly an important feature of the Church, a more important feature to my mind is authority and a study of this will be much more edifying because discussions about infallibility are usually based on non-Catholics scouring Church documents looking for so much as a misplaced semicolon and asking us to explain the supposed contradiction. Such a mode could go on forever.

Dear Scott,

That’s one reason I think that infallibility should not be defended in the realm of logic and reason, because in this realm there can be no end to the discussion. It can never be proven, and its logical defense drives doubters into the fruitless task of disproving it which, as you’ve pointed out can go together.

Explained and clarified, yes, but not defended. Simply assert what we believe and let those who are called to believe it do so. This would be true faith on the part of God’s church; speak the truth as she believes (or “knows”) it to be, and don’t get caught up in defending things using man made tools of logic and reason which cannot, by definition, prove and article of faith.

Once an article of faith is proven with logic and reason, it ceases to be an article of faith.

Alan