Pope can't be infallible

  • Thread starter Thread starter jfoges
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

jfoges

Guest
I am writing here to express the position that papal infallibility is a heresy and is an innovation in Catholicism. A true Catholic should reject this false teaching. The Magisterium can only proclaim things that are already in revelation (scripture and tradition). It can’t make up something new. The doctrine of papal infallibility was never taught by the ordinary magisterium before 1,000 AD. It is not part of the deposit of faith, it does not come from the Apostles. It is a divisive and illogical doctrine that has caused the Catholic Church to be rent asunder (the schism and roformation). It should be acknowledged as error so that all Christians can unite under the Pope, the shepard and servant of the Church, not its absolute monarch.
 
Not only can be, but is. Can you provide sources for your claims that Papal infallibility is a heresy?

Peace,
Linda
 
jfoges said:
I am writing here to express the position that papal infallibility is a heresy and is an innovation in Catholicism. A true Catholic should reject this false teaching. The Magisterium can only proclaim things that are already in revelation (scripture and tradition). It can’t make up something new. The doctrine of papal infallibility was never taught by the ordinary magisterium before 1,000 AD. It is not part of the deposit of faith, it does not come from the Apostles. It is a divisive and illogical doctrine that has caused the Catholic Church to be rent asunder (the schism and roformation). It should be acknowledged as error so that all Christians can unite under the Pope, the shepard and servant of the Church, not its absolute monarch.
Click to expand...
Methinks that you don’t quite understand the nature of papal infallibility.

The magistarium isn’t making things up.

And your logic is faulty; if the pope is fallible in teachings of the faith, then why would Christians “unite under the Pope” if he is believe to (possibly) be in error about matters of the Faith?? :confused:
 
jfoges said:
I am writing here to express the position that papal infallibility is a heresy and is an innovation in Catholicism. A true Catholic should reject this false teaching. The Magisterium can only proclaim things that are already in revelation (scripture and tradition). It can’t make up something new. The doctrine of papal infallibility was never taught by the ordinary magisterium before 1,000 AD. It is not part of the deposit of faith, it does not come from the Apostles. It is a divisive and illogical doctrine that has caused the Catholic Church to be rent asunder (the schism and roformation). It should be acknowledged as error so that all Christians can unite under the Pope, the shepard and servant of the Church, not its absolute monarch.
Click to expand...
Go to the top of the
page and click on Catholic encyclopedia and look up infallibility you will find the answer to your question. How many times has the pope spoke infallibly, ONCE since the year 1870 . I think you are wrong P/I was around before 1000ad look at the writings of the ECF and early councils.
 
jfoges said:
I am writing here to express the position that papal infallibility is a heresy and is an innovation in Catholicism. A true Catholic should reject this false teaching. The Magisterium can only proclaim things that are already in revelation (scripture and tradition). It can’t make up something new. The doctrine of papal infallibility was never taught by the ordinary magisterium before 1,000 AD. It is not part of the deposit of faith, it does not come from the Apostles. It is a divisive and illogical doctrine that has caused the Catholic Church to be rent asunder (the schism and roformation). It should be acknowledged as error so that all Christians can unite under the Pope, the shepard and servant of the Church, not its absolute monarch.
Click to expand...
Actually, a true Catholic accepts this teaching. There is nothing in faith or morals the Church teaches that is false. As to your statement that it was never taught before 1,000 AD, I submit:

Evidence for this with regard to infallibility is not lacking. Almost a century before the divinity of Christ was dogmatically established, Cyprian of Carthage had this to say of the Church, “Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come” (Epistulae 59 (55), 14, [256 A.D.]).

Also I find it to be most logical.
 
Jfoges, I am somewhat confused so please bear with me. You are saying that papal infallibility is a heresy and is an innovation in Catholicism, yet in previous posts in other threads you have said:
“Most people here have no idea what they are talking about. You can’t claim something is morally wrong because of some obscure passage in the new Orange Catechism. The Catechism is not infallible by any means. As it is not dogma. It is an authentic teaching of the Pope, but hardly qualifies as an infallible teaching of the ordinary magisterium. You really need to use common sense on this one. Use your head. C’mon.”

“There have only been two statements in the history of the Church, one in 1854, and one in 1950 that were infallible statements of a Pope. By the way, where does the Church teach infallibly that girls cannot be altar servers and that priests can never be women? It doesn’t teach that anywhere I know of. If I am wrong please provide proof from the solemn definition of an ecumenical council.”

"I don’t see why not. If anyone disagrees let him provide proof. And the Catechism does not count as it is not infallible.’

“Are you kidding me? Ratzinger and Benedict are the same person. This statement of Benedict is not infallible, and neither are all of the statements made by Ratzinger as Pope. The writings of Pope Benedict before he became Pope are the same expressions of Ratzinger after he became Pope.”
What confuses me is that previous to this post, you seem to be clearly acknowledging that there is indeed such a thing as Papal Infallibility, going so far as to acknowledge that there have been at least two infallable Papal declarations, and using the lack of an infallable statement as proof for your position.

What changed your mind on the subject?
 
jfoges said:
I am writing here to express the position that papal infallibility is a heresy and is an innovation in Catholicism. A true Catholic should reject this false teaching. The Magisterium can only proclaim things that are already in revelation (scripture and tradition). It can’t make up something new. The doctrine of papal infallibility was never taught by the ordinary magisterium before 1,000 AD. It is not part of the deposit of faith, it does not come from the Apostles. It is a divisive and illogical doctrine that has caused the Catholic Church to be rent asunder (the schism and roformation). It should be acknowledged as error so that all Christians can unite under the Pope, the shepard and servant of the Church, not its absolute monarch.
Click to expand...
I am writing here to express the position that all those who claim papal infallibility is a heresy are themselves heretics, and their claim is an innovation of “False Catholicism”. A true Catholic should accept the infallible teaching. The Magesterium can bind heaven and earth. The doctrine of papal infallibility was taught by Christ himself long before 1,000 AD. It is part of the deposit of faith, it does come from the Apostles. It is a unifying and logical doctrine that has caused the Catholic Church to be unified and over 1.2 billion strong, ( so much for the schism and reformation). It should be acknowledged as TRUTH so that all Christians can unite under the Pope, the Shepard and Servant of Christ and the Church, it’s visible leader.
 
Sounds like someone has been listening/reading into anti-catholic propaganda…
 
I’d honestly like to hear WHY the Pope cannot be infallible (as defined at Vat I)
 
Hey everyone. Before we post on threads like these, we should do a little research on the poster first. By looking at these three criteria, we can reduce the number of purely emotional/uncharitable threads we get involved in.
  1. Does the initial poster provide any documentation or proof to back up their claim? (If not, are they really interested in proving their point?)
  2. Does the initial poster reply to others comments, or simply post and leave? (If they post and leave are they committed to engaging in a religious discourse, or did they just try to make people upset?)
  3. Looking at the initial posters previous posts, does there seem to be a pattern of emotional appeals and labeling, or do they try to convey their message in a Christian manner? (What is their intent on the message boards)
These criteria are the reason I am only posting this, and not a response to the initial post. Sorry if I sound preachy. I just used to get sucked in to these things and get upset.

Have a great day!

God Bless,

YACatholic:thumbsup:
 
chris_molter said:
I’d honestly like to hear WHY the Pope cannot be infallible (as defined at Vat I)
Click to expand...
If one is sloppy with the definition of what “infallibility” is, it is very easy to declare the the Pope is infallible.

This, however, is technically incorrect. The Pope is human, subject temptations, like the rest of us. All have sinned, some grievously. Therefore, as a person, he is not infallible.

Infallibility applies to the Church’s teaching, not to it specific members. From the “Infallibility” article in the Catholic Encyclopedia:
Church is infallible in her objective definitive teaching regarding faith and morals
Click to expand...
This being said, the Pope is infallible in only a very limited sense. Two limitations are 1) that he is teaching on faith and morals, and 2) that he is speak to the whole Church.
 
ricko said:
Evidence for this with regard to infallibility is not lacking. Almost a century before the divinity of Christ was dogmatically established, Cyprian of Carthage had this to say of the Church, “Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come” (Epistulae 59 (55), 14, [256 A.D.]).
Click to expand...
Also I find it to be most logical.

That quote from Cyprian is a forgery. Cyprian never said that. That forgery is part of the Isidorian forgeries form the middle ages which also said that the Pope the right to rule th former Roman Empire. Infact, those forgeries are the original source for the claims of papal infallibility.

The Pope is not only considered infallible when he is speaking ex cathedra. The Pope is also considered infallible when he is speaking with the ordinary magisterium. This means that whatever the Pope teaches, which is also accepted by most bishops, who are appointed by the Pope, is considerered infallible truth.

The reason Vatican 1 was able to make papal infallibility a dogma is because it was already taught by the ordinary magisterium. However, the idea of the inffallibility of the magisterium, whether ordinary, or extraordinary is really where the problem lies.

Neither the apostles, nor Peter himself, were ever promised infallibility. Only that Christ would be with them and would preserve their faith. Also, the Pope in the bishops are not really successors to the apostles in any special way. The bishops were only powerful priests who controlled several congregations. There is nothing wrong with the bishop-priest-deacon hierarchy. However, it is wrong to make a claim that infallible teaching authority rests on this arbitrary hierarchy that is not biblical.
 
jfoges said:
That quote from Cyprian is a forgery. Cyprian never said that. That forgery is part of the Isidorian forgeries form the middle ages which also said that the Pope the right to rule th former Roman Empire. Infact, those forgeries are the original source for the claims of papal infallibility.

The Pope is not only considered infallible when he is speaking ex cathedra. The Pope is also considered infallible when he is speaking with the ordinary magisterium. This means that whatever the Pope teaches, which is also accepted by most bishops, who are appointed by the Pope, is considerered infallible truth.

The reason Vatican 1 was able to make papal infallibility a dogma is because it was already taught by the ordinary magisterium. However, the idea of the inffallibility of the magisterium, whether ordinary, or extraordinary is really where the problem lies.

Neither the apostles, nor Peter himself, were ever promised infallibility. Only that Christ would be with them and would preserve their faith. Also, the Pope in the bishops are not really successors to the apostles in any special way. The bishops were only powerful priests who controlled several congregations. There is nothing wrong with the bishop-priest-deacon hierarchy. However, it is wrong to make a claim that infallible teaching authority rests on this arbitrary hierarchy that is not biblical.
Click to expand...
Can you send us a link to the documents that support your claims in this post please? Thanks.

YACatholic
 
jfoges said:
Neither the apostles, nor Peter himself, were ever promised infallibility. Only that Christ would be with them and would preserve their faith.
Click to expand...
Matthew 16:19
“I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.”

1 Timothy 3:15
“…which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.”

Ask yourself this question. Can a Lie bind up heaven? I don’t think so. The only thing that could possibly bind up heaven would be a TRUTH. Hence infallibility.

Taken with 1 Timothy 3:15, this is a strong case for TRUTH which translates infallibility.
 
YACatholic said:
Can you send us a link to the documents that support your claims in this post please? Thanks.

YACatholic
Click to expand...
Actually I was wrong about Cyprian’s quote being a forgery. I mistook it for another quote that was a forgery from the Isidorian forgeries of the Middle Ages.

However, you might be interested to know that Cyprian opposed Pope Stephen in his attempt to excommunicate large areas for accepting baptism by heretics. Here is a reference for this piece of information.

Kung, Hans (1971). Infallible? An Inquiry. Doubleday and Company, NY, p. 113.
 
Chipper said:
Matthew 16:19
“I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.”

1 Timothy 3:15
“…which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.”

Ask yourself this question. Can a Lie bind up heaven? I don’t think so. The only thing that could possibly bind up heaven would be a TRUTH. Hence infallibility.

Taken with 1 Timothy 3:15, this is a strong case for TRUTH which translates infallibility.
Click to expand...
I can see some problems with this reasoning. First of all, the binding and loosing does not actually say anything about teaching authority. It is a quite mysterious phrase that is difficult to interpret.

Lets assume it is about teaching authority. If so, then the binding and loosing would themselves be bound by the limits of Truth, of revelation. So therefore, the apostles given this power would not be infallible, but would infact be limited in what they coudl bind and loose by the limits of what is true and what they had recieved from the Lord.

Now, there is another problem here. You are transferring this ability to bind and loose from the Apostles to the bishops of the Church. What is to say that only bishops would inherit this ability and not all the Christian faithful? Why not priests? Why not laity? What is it about bishops that makes them the heirs of this promise?
 
jfoges said:
I can see some problems with this reasoning. First of all, the binding and loosing does not actually say anything about teaching authority. It is a quite mysterious phrase that is difficult to interpret.
Click to expand...
What is it that you find mysterious and difficult to interpret about the word “whatever”? ( “…whatever you bind…”) “Whatever” seems VERY clear to me.
Lets assume it is about teaching authority. If so, then the binding and loosing would themselves be bound by the limits of Truth, of revelation. So therefore, the apostles given this power would not be infallible, but would infact be limited in what they coudl bind and loose by the limits of what is true and what they had recieved from the Lord.
Click to expand...
You are very correct in recognizing that anything the Pope binds infallibly wil be in conformity with God’s truth. That is what makes the gift of infallibility such a wonderful assurance that God will protect His Church from teaching error. It is God who is the one overseeing what is declared by His Church; ensuring that it is the truth. Do you doubt that God has the power to do such a thing? Do you not think that Jesus, who is Truth, would desire that His Church ("…I will build My Church.") teach only His truth? Do you think He does not have the power to intervene to prevent the proclamation of error?

To believe in the infallibility of the Magisterium has nothing to do with believing in the superior wisdom of men, but EVERYTHING to do with believing in the power of God, His love and concern for His followers, and His faithfulness to carry out His word.

(Note how when Peter acknowledges Jesus, Jesus says to Peter, “For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.”
God.)
Now, there is another problem here. You are transferring this ability to bind and loose from the Apostles to the bishops of the Church. What is to say that only bishops would inherit this ability and not all the Christian faithful? Why not priests? Why not laity? What is it about bishops that makes them the heirs of this promise?
Click to expand...
Only the bishops are the direct successors of the Apostles.
The promise was made to Peter (Mt 16) and the other apostles (Mt 18). The keys were given to Peter alone. If Jesus had meant the gift to be for everyone, He would have stated it in one of His sermons to the public, or instructed His apostles that it was meant to apply to everyone.

Nita
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top