Pope can't be infallible

[whiteknite]

Talking of Popes, Can anyone tell me much about Saint Malachy??
I was watching something on Utube and decided to search on the subject and was wondering what the Church has on this:-
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophecy_of_the_Popes

 

[Nita]

I noticed u did not substantiate this claim in any way, but merely stated it as fact.

It’s infallible teaching of the Church.
If you want a reference to a Church doctrine, let me know.

If it’s Scripture you want, Jesus of course says He is establishing a Church. Unless you think He meant He was establishing a Church to exist only till the death of the last apostle, then it automatically means a continuation in following generations of the Church He established.
Scripture references for successors would be the commissioning of others by the laying on of hands in the epistles.

 

[trustinyou]

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.

what?? your profile says your catholic?
embryonic stem cell research,cloning,contraception,abortion,mixing animal and human dna,etc,etc…thank God for the pope and the magisterium,which thur the Holy Spirit speak the truth…this world would probably be worse without them…this is one reason why they are there, to inform the flock of any new evil…

 

[Chipper]

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.

Methinks you should reread the scripture quote… It says “WHATEVER” I even underlined it and colored it blue in the hopes that you wouldn’t ask a question like this.

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.

This seems like clouded logic to me. If the apostle is bound by the truth, then how is he not infallible? Combined with the word “Whatever” this is Jesus imaking an extraordinary faith statement about Kephas’s authority to never bind heaven with a lie.

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?

I am not transferring this ability to anyone. Peter and the Apostles did that since they have the power to “Bind Heaven”.
The “Word of God” also says the “Church is the pillar and foundation of truth”. So how in the world can the church make a lie, if it is the pillar/foundation of truth and it has the power to bind heaven?

For transfer of authority read Acts of the Apostles, it was done using laying on of the hands. It’s called Apostolic succession.

For more info about Apostolic succesion read these:

2 Chr 19:11 - high priest is over you in everything of Lord’s.
Mal 2:7 - seek instruction from priest, he is God’s messenger.
Eph 2:20 Church built upon foundation of apostles and prophets.
Eph 4:11 - God gave some as apostles, others as prophets.
Acts 1:20 - Let another take his office.
Acts 1:25-26 - Matthias takes Judas’s apostolic ministry.
1 Tim 3:1,8,5:17 - qualifications for:bishops, priests and deacons.
1 Tim 4:14 - gift conferred with the laying on of hands.
1 Tim 5:22 - do not lay hands too readily on anyone.
Act 14:23 - The appointed presbyters in each church.
2 Tim 2:2 - What you heard from me entrust to faithful teachers.
Titus 1:5 - appoint presbyters in every town, as I directed.

 

[jfoges]

It’s infallible teaching of the Church.
If you want a reference to a Church doctrine, let me know.

If it’s Scripture you want, Jesus of course says He is establishing a Church. Unless you think He meant He was establishing a Church to exist only till the death of the last apostle, then it automatically means a continuation in following generations of the Church He established.
Scripture references for successors would be the commissioning of others by the laying on of hands in the epistles.

You say it is an infallible teaching of the Church. It is only an infallible teaching of the church if the teaching is true in the first place. This is circular reasoning.

I am not saying that there are no successors to the apostles who can carry on the mission of the Church throughout the ages. I am asking how you know that the bishops are in any way special successors to the apostles, as opposed to priests and the laity. How do you know that all christians who proclaim the faith of the apostles are not equal successors of the apostles?

 

[DianJo]

jfoges,who filled your head with such nonsense? Or did you come up with revelation on your own?

You seem to think that the Pope and/or the Magesterium declared things willy-nilly throughout the millenia. The purpose of the Pope and Magesterium is only to protect and pronounce the divinely revealed truths (the entire deposit of faith by word and/or writings) given to us by Jesus and the Apostles - nothing more, nothing less.

The only time the Pope has spoken from the chair are the 2 times you have listed and both times those pronouncements had already been believed and practiced by the whole of Christianity. Those pronouncementes protected and explained or expounded on existing teachings either because the faithful petitioned to have it become doctrine or because there was some profound misunderstanding about the teaching and the statements were made to clarify and to define the teaching once and for all.

This last thing that was even remotely considered infallible was JPII’s statement on the matter of women in the priesthood back in the 80’s. He defined, once and for all that the Church cannot ordain women to the priesthood because Jesus did not ordain women.

When any pronouncement is made, many people, theologians, scholars, doctors, teachers, etc research all the teachings from the very beginning. They start with Jesus and the Apostles and work up to the present making sure the “pronouncement” or teaching will only further illuminate what is already known.

To have the Pope and the Magesterium makes me feel confident in knowing that what I believe is what was actually taught and practiced by the Apostles who were taught by Jesus. Jesus promised the Holy Spirit would help them remember all that He had taught them and would lead them to all truth. He also said that He would be with them until the end of the age. That means that what the Apostles taught to their successors (bishops) and so on has been preserved by the Holy Spirit. I know that what I believe is the truth - no doubt.

 

[jfoges]

what?? your profile says your catholic?
embryonic stem cell research,cloning,contraception,abortion,mixing animal and human dna,etc,etc…thank God for the pope and the magisterium,which thur the Holy Spirit speak the truth…this world would probably be worse without them…this is one reason why they are there, to inform the flock of any new evil…

I am Catholic.

The Magisterium can only proclaim truths that are already in scripture and tradition. Why do we need them to proclaim these trues if they are already known, through scripture and tradition?

 

[estesbob]

You say it is an infallible teaching of the Church. It is only an infallible teaching of the church if the teaching is true in the first place. This is circular reasoning.

I am not saying that there are no successors to the apostles who can carry on the mission of the Church throughout the ages. I am asking how you know that the bishops are in any way special successors to the apostles, as opposed to priests and the laity. How do you know that all christians who proclaim the faith of the apostles are not equal successors of the apostles?

Did you make your first confession before after you were confirmed? Sounds like you’re a different generation than I am. I’m just curious

 

[jfoges]

Methinks you should reread the scripture quote… It says “WHATEVER” I even underlined it and colored it blue in the hopes that you wouldn’t ask a question like this.

This seems like clouded logic to me. If the apostle is bound by the truth, then how is he not infallible? Combined with the word “Whatever” this is Jesus imaking an extraordinary faith statement about Kephas’s authority to never bind heaven with a lie.

I am not transferring this ability to anyone. Peter and the Apostles did that since they have the power to “Bind Heaven”.
The “Word of God” also says the “Church is the pillar and foundation of truth”. So how in the world can the church make a lie, if it is the pillar/foundation of truth and it has the power to bind heaven?

For transfer of authority read Acts of the Apostles, it was done using laying on of the hands. It’s called Apostolic succession.

For more info about Apostolic succesion read these:

2 Chr 19:11 - high priest is over you in everything of Lord’s.
Mal 2:7 - seek instruction from priest, he is God’s messenger.
Eph 2:20 Church built upon foundation of apostles and prophets.
Eph 4:11 - God gave some as apostles, others as prophets.
Acts 1:20 - Let another take his office.
Acts 1:25-26 - Matthias takes Judas’s apostolic ministry.
1 Tim 3:1,8,5:17 - qualifications for:bishops, priests and deacons.
1 Tim 4:14 - gift conferred with the laying on of hands.
1 Tim 5:22 - do not lay hands too readily on anyone.
Act 14:23 - The appointed presbyters in each church.
2 Tim 2:2 - What you heard from me entrust to faithful teachers.
Titus 1:5 - appoint presbyters in every town, as I directed.

The statement by Jesus about binding and loosing does not mention anything about teaching authority. It could simply be a reference to prayer, which Jesus said can accomplish any task, if enough faith is involved. This is just a single alternative explanation, I am not claiming to know exactly what is meant. The point though is that teaching authority is not mentioned at all here.

My statement regarding the limitations of the Magisterium is a statement about Catholic dogma. Catholic dogma indicates that the Magisterium of the Church can only proclaim those trues that are contained in the deposit of faith. This deposit of fait is known to the Church through scripture and tradition. Therefore, the Magisterium is bound by the confines of what is in scripture and tradition. The idea of infallibility is clearly a divergence which places the Magisterium itself on the same level and even above scripture and tradition, when really it should serve scripture and tradition.

Bishops cannot be the sole heirs of the apostles. This is true for a simple reason. Originally, episkopoi and presbyters were the same thing. Episkopoi were simply the priests who oversaw a large congregation with many sub-priests assisting them. As Christianity spread into the countryside the people in the country fell under the rule of that episkopos (overseer). Over time, the bishop-priest-deacon hierarchy was established. The idea that the apostles specifically left their office to bishops only is historically false, as well as unbiblical.

 

[jfoges]

The only time the Pope has spoken from the chair are the 2 times you have listed and both times those pronouncements had already been believed and practiced by the whole of Christianity. Those pronouncementes protected and explained or expounded on existing teachings either because the faithful petitioned to have it become doctrine or because there was some profound misunderstanding about the teaching and the statements were made to clarify and to define the teaching once and for all.

QUOTE]

If only it were true that these were the only “infallible” pronouncements of popes. There is more that is considered infallible then “ex cathedra” statements. Infact, according to Catholic dogma as it is currently understood, anytime the pope teaches anything that is universally agreed upon by the bishops, this is considered a teaching of the ordinary magisterium, and therefore infallible. This is why the teaching contained in Humanae Vitae and JP2’s encyclical about women in the priesthood are considered infallible, because they are taught by the ordinary magisterium. They cannot be changed without challenging the entire notion of an infallible magisterium.

 

[jfoges]

Did you make your first confession before after you were confirmed? Sounds like you’re a different generation than I am. I’m just curious

I’m in my 20’s, don’t know if that helps.

There have been catholics who were challening the infallibility of the Pope since it was made dogma at Vatican I. Infact, numerous bishops in europe went into schism over this dogma. They formed what is known as the Old Catholic Church.

 

[DianJo]

You say it is an infallible teaching of the Church. It is only an infallible teaching of the church if the teaching is true in the first place. This is circular reasoning.

The Church does not make up new stuff. Their only job is the protect and expound on (deeper understanding) of already divinely revealed truths. So, we know because of Jesus’ promises of the Holy Spirit that what has been defined is the truth.

I am not saying that there are no successors to the apostles who can carry on the mission of the Church throughout the ages. I am asking how you know that the bishops are in any way special successors to the apostles, as opposed to priests and the laity. How do you know that all christians who proclaim the faith of the apostles are not equal successors of the apostles?

If you remember in Acts, the Apostles ordained “helpers” at table so they could be free to do other things. Sounds like Bishops and Priests to me. The offices of the bishop and the priests have grown and changed over the centuries.

In Acts also, you remember when Matthias was ordained to “take the place of Judas.” Matthias was the succssor of Juds, he was ordained a bishop of the foundling Church. The Apostles (Bishops) ordained others to help them with some of their duites as the Church was growing. The promises made to Peter and to the other Apostles by Jesus were made to them only. He was not speaking to a crowd of disciples, He was speaking directly to the Apostles. Therefore, those promises apply only to the Bishops.

The wording of the ordination of a priest is different than that of a Bishop because they have different faculties. They are not the same. Jesus ordained His leaders for a particular reason and that is what is passed on to the Bishops. It’s the Bishops that ordain priests and their “jobs” were “developed” by the Apostles to help them.

It’s the job of the laity to be obedient to their leaders, those placed in authority over us by God. It’s the job of the preists and the bishops to teach the faithful and to offer the Sacraments. It’s no different than in the OT where God set up a separate priesthood to lead the peolpe. Those high priests were the ones designated to communicate with God and to offer sacrifice on behalf of all the people. They were consecrated to service of God. To consecrate something or someone to God means they are set apart - sacred - and are only to be used for that purpose. The laity are not in that position. The priests and bishps are to lead us in worship of God.

 

[Chipper]

The statement by Jesus about binding and loosing does not mention anything about teaching authority. It could simply be a reference to prayer, which Jesus said can accomplish any task, if enough faith is involved. This is just a single alternative explanation, I am not claiming to know exactly what is meant. The point though is that teaching authority is not mentioned at all here.

First of all the word “whatever” can include prayer too. I am not restricting this word to anything. If “whatever” implies no restrictions, then why do you restrict teaching authority?

I really can’t agree that the word “Whatever” restricts anything. I don’t understand why you would want to bring in exclusions when the word “whatever” is actually used not once, but twice in the bible passage.

Please explain how the word “whatever” is restrictive of anything.

My statement regarding the limitations of the Magisterium is a statement about Catholic dogma. Catholic dogma indicates that the Magisterium of the Church can only proclaim those trues that are contained in the deposit of faith. This deposit of fait is known to the Church through scripture and tradition. Therefore, the Magisterium is bound by the confines of what is in scripture and tradition. The idea of infallibility is clearly a divergence which places the Magisterium itself on the same level and even above scripture and tradition, when really it should serve scripture and tradition.

You are partially correct except for one thing. The Magesterium gave us the Bible. Without the Magesterium there would be no Bible. If the Magesterium gives us the Bible (Word of God) and even the protestants accept the bible as the “Infallible Word of God”, then how in the world is the church confined by scripture? The magesterium came first for almost 400 years, then they created the bible. Scripture does not clearly explain everything, therefore we require a Church to explain it for us. This by definition means that the Magesterium cannot be “Confined” by the scripture. Although the Magesterium will never go against scripture.

And as for Tradition, let’s use “Sacred Tradition” rather then tradition. You only have “Sacred Tradition” handed down to you via the Magesterium.

Bishops cannot be the sole heirs of the apostles. This is true for a simple reason. Originally, episkopoi and presbyters were the same thing. Episkopoi were simply the priests who oversaw a large congregation with many sub-priests assisting them. As Christianity spread into the countryside the people in the country fell under the rule of that episkopos (overseer). Over time, the bishop-priest-deacon hierarchy was established. The idea that the apostles specifically left their office to bishops only is historically false, as well as unbiblical.

Then how in the world do you explain the refernces to Bishops, Deacons and Presbyters in the Bible - the Word of God. This didn’t take place over time, it was happening at the beggining of the church.

Did you read any of the scripture quotes I gave you?

 

[jfoges]

You are partially correct except for one thing. The Magesterium gave us the Bible. Without the Magesterium there would be no Bible. If the Magesterium gives us the Bible (Word of God) and even the protestants accept the bible as the “Infallible Word of God”, then how in the world is the church confined by scripture? The magesterium came first for almost 400 years, then they created the bible. Scripture does not clearly explain everything, therefore we require a Church to explain it for us. This by definition means that the Magesterium cannot be “Confined” by the scripture. Although the Magesterium will never go against scripture.
?

I’m going to focus on this argument you made here.

The Magisterium did not give us the bible. The Magisterium, which can only teach that which is in revelation, simply proclaimed that which was universally accepted by the Church already. This is the proper role of the Magisterium, to affirm Holy Tradition.

You are correct that scripture does not explain everything. But we also have Holy Tradition to explain scripture. Remember, the Magisterium does not teach anything new, but only affirms what is already held by the Church. We do not need the Magisterium to know what is already believed by the Church.

As for the word whatever, my point is simply that the binding and loosing passage does not mention teaching authority. I do not claim to know exactly what is meant by this passage, but to say that it proves the infallibility of the magisterium located in the bishops and the pope is simpy untrue. It does not, in itself prove this. And it does not prove this when accompanied by Holy Tradition as it is recorded in historical information we have about the ancient church and the church in late antiquity.

 

[estesbob]

I’m in my 20’s, don’t know if that helps.

There have been catholics who were challening the infallibility of the Pope since it was made dogma at Vatican I. Infact, numerous bishops in europe went into schism over this dogma. They formed what is known as the Old Catholic Church.

You made your first confession after your confirmation?

 

[jfoges]

You made your first confession after your confirmation?

Yeah I did. I don’t get why you are asking me this.

 

[estesbob]

Yeah I did. I don’t get why you are asking me this.

Just wondering if you’re really Catholic. The order of the sacraments is baptism, confession, first Communion, and then confirmation. If an adult is bought into the church at Easter they may be confirmed before their first Communion however confession is always done before the first Communion and confirmation. Based on your answers I seriously doubt if you’re Catholic.

 

[jfoges]

If you remember in Acts, the Apostles ordained “helpers” at table so they could be free to do other things. Sounds like Bishops and Priests to me. The offices of the bishop and the priests have grown and changed over the centuries.

In Acts also, you remember when Matthias was ordained to “take the place of Judas.” Matthias was the succssor of Juds, he was ordained a bishop of the foundling Church. The Apostles (Bishops) ordained others to help them with some of their duites as the Church was growing. The promises made to Peter and to the other Apostles by Jesus were made to them only. He was not speaking to a crowd of disciples, He was speaking directly to the Apostles. Therefore, those promises apply only to the Bishops.

The wording of the ordination of a priest is different than that of a Bishop because they have different faculties. They are not the same. Jesus ordained His leaders for a particular reason and that is what is passed on to the Bishops. It’s the Bishops that ordain priests and their “jobs” were “developed” by the Apostles to help them.

It’s the job of the laity to be obedient to their leaders, those placed in authority over us by God. It’s the job of the preists and the bishops to teach the faithful and to offer the Sacraments. It’s no different than in the OT where God set up a separate priesthood to lead the peolpe. Those high priests were the ones designated to communicate with God and to offer sacrifice on behalf of all the people. They were consecrated to service of God. To consecrate something or someone to God means they are set apart - sacred - and are only to be used for that purpose. The laity are not in that position. The priests and bishps are to lead us in worship of God.

Part of the problem with apostlic succession in bishops is that initially there was no real difference between bishops and priests. So it is not possible that the apostles could have left their office in bishops with the exclusion of priests. Yet, catholic dogma says that teaching authority rests in bishops, and not priests.

I’m not saying that bishops cannot teach the faithful. I am not saying there is no role for a Magisterium. I am simply arguing against infallibility of the Magisterium.

 

[jfoges]

Just wondering if you’re really Catholic. The order of the sacraments is baptism, confession, first Communion, and then confirmation. If an adult is bought into the church at Easter they may be confirmed before their first Communion however confession is always done before the first Communion and confirmation. Based on your answers I seriously doubt if you’re Catholic.

I don’t care.

 

[DianJo]

QUOTE: If only it were true that these were the only “infallible” pronouncements of popes. There is more that is considered infallible then “ex cathedra” statements. Infact, according to Catholic dogma as it is currently understood, anytime the pope teaches anything that is universally agreed upon by the bishops, this is considered a teaching of the ordinary magisterium, and therefore infallible. This is why the teaching contained in Humanae Vitae and JP2’s encyclical about women in the priesthood are considered infallible, because they are taught by the ordinary magisterium. They cannot be changed without challenging the entire notion of an infallible magisterium.

Agreed. Okay, so I don’t understand where your problem is.
I can’t see where anyone would have a problem with these statements. They have been pronounced - nuiansed - so we can better understand the teaching. They are “officially” defined once and for all.

Most of the pronouncements have been made when there has been some misunderstanding or some heresy that the Church needed to clarify (Humanae Vitae for example when contraception becacme the rage of the day). Some pronouncements have been made because the faithful wanted it declared as dogma (the Assumption (I think)).

You need to think of the Pope and Magesterium as the Protectors of the Deposit of Faith not as some entity that goes around making rules to make our lives miserable. As protectors, they “officially define” what has been divinely revealed and practiced throughout the centuries when someone “bucks” those truths. A good example of that now is the most recent attack by Nancy Pelosi saying that the Church’s stance on abortion has not been clear over the centuries. eek: ) It’s the job of the Church to clarify that teaching and to explain it to the faithful so that everyone is clear and they understand the timeless teaching of Jesus. Although, I don’t think an infallible pronouncement on the evils of abortion is necessary…I don’t know, maybe Pope Benedict should make an infallible pronouncement on abortion!!