Pope can't be infallible

[estesbob]

I don’t care.

Non-Catholics come into these forums all the time to debate Catholic doctrine. Why did you feel you needed to misrepresent yourself to carry on a debate about papal infallibility ?

 

[jfoges]

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!!

I really don’t have a problem with having a Magisterium. My only problem is the idea that it is infallible.

 

[TLara]

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.

Just a reminder there are a lot of adults that are baptized, have their first communion and then confirmation on the same day. thus there would be no need for confession.

 

[pnewton]

Based on your answers I seriously doubt if you’re Catholic.

No, but the age I believe.

CCC #2089

Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same;

As Vatican II remarked, it is a charism the pope “enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith (Luke 22:32), he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals. Therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly held irreformable, for they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, an assistance promised to him in blessed Peter.”

catholic.com/library/papal_infallibility.asp

What kind of Catholic is the OP. He can disregard doctrine at will and decide what Church teaching, even in Church council, is true and what is not? In disregarding the authority of the Pope, he also denies the authority of the Church meeting in Council, for the have affirmed that authority, both in Vatican I and Vatican II.

 

[DianJo]

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.

You obviously didn’t read Acts where the duties of the Bishops and the Priests are clearly different. You also have not studied history on the matter either or else you would not say that there was no difference in their jobs.

In the first few centuries of the church, at first, it was only the bishops who could say Mass and offer the Sacraments. The priests were not allowed to do this. As time passed and the Church began to grow, the bishops delegated some of their authority to the priests to at least be able to say Mass for the multitudes. In later centuries, the Bishops further delegated some of his authority so the priest could administer Baptism because of logistical reasons. It was still the Bishops that could only confer Confirmation. To this day the ordinary minister of Confirmation is the Bishop unless he delegates that authority to a priest if necessay.

Their jobs were not the same certainly in the begining. The overlap came as Christianity grew to include the entire world. Their jobs are not the same today.

As for the 2nd portion of the quote above, you’ll have to argue that point with Jesus/Holy Spirit. He was the one that gave the command to feed, tend His sheep, to bind and to loose to Peter and the Apostles and gave the Keys of His Kingdom to Peter until He comes again. Just because YOU say it doesn’t mean that doesn’t make it true.

You know, I don’t know too many Catholics who agree with everything the Church teaches and that’s really unfortunate. I do know lots of Catholics who will OBEY what the Church’s teaches and make every effort to pray and try and understand the teaching. You, however seem hell-bent on putting your fingers in your ears like a child and yelling, “NA-NA-NA-NA, I can’t hear you!”

You have been given every angle of the teaching but still you persist in saying “No, that’s NOT what it says.” Unfortunatly, you sound more protestant than Catholic.

 

[jfoges]

You obviously didn’t read Acts where the duties of the Bishops and the Priests are clearly different. You also have not studied history on the matter either or else you would not say that there was no difference in their jobs.

In the first few centuries of the church, at first, it was only the bishops who could say Mass and offer the Sacraments. The priests were not allowed to do this. As time passed and the Church began to grow, the bishops delegated some of their authority to the priests to at least be able to say Mass for the multitudes. In later centuries, the Bishops further delegated some of his authority so the priest could administer Baptism because of logistical reasons. It was still the Bishops that could only confer Confirmation. To this day the ordinary minister of Confirmation is the Bishop unless he delegates that authority to a priest if necessay.

Their jobs were not the same certainly in the begining. The overlap came as Christianity grew to include the entire world. Their jobs are not the same today.

As for the 2nd portion of the quote above, you’ll have to argue that point with Jesus/Holy Spirit. He was the one that gave the command to feed, tend His sheep, to bind and to loose to Peter and the Apostles and gave the Keys of His Kingdom to Peter until He comes again. Just because YOU say it doesn’t mean that doesn’t make it true.

You know, I don’t know too many Catholics who agree with everything the Church teaches and that’s really unfortunate. I do know lots of Catholics who will OBEY what the Church’s teaches and make every effort to pray and try and understand the teaching. You, however seem hell-bent on putting your fingers in your ears like a child and yelling, “NA-NA-NA-NA, I can’t hear you!”

You have been given every angle of the teaching but still you persist in saying “No, that’s NOT what it says.” Unfortunatly, you sound more protestant than Catholic.

I’m not even going to respond to this because its filled with personal attacks on me. I don’t respond to ad hominem arguments.

 

[wanner47]

I don’t care.

If you lie about being Catholic, why should we take you or your claims seriously?

 

[jfoges]

I just want to let everyone know so that they don’t waste there time, that I don’t respond to ad hominem attacks. This is inculding spurious accusations that I am lying about something.

 

[DianJo]

I really don’t have a problem with having a Magisterium. My only problem is the idea that it is infallible.

I just don’t understand the problem. If you are okay with having the Pope and Magesterium, I don’t get the part about infallibility!

If they are not infallible and cannot protect, with authority from God, the Deposit of Faith, then we are just like all the protestant demoninations. We can make up stuff to reconcile our own ideas about who Jesus is.

There are thousands of demons out there that can’t even agree on whether Baptism is regenerative or not, whether or not confession by a priest is necessary, whether priests are even neccessary, the sacraments are necessary - no, they are not…how confusing is that???

These denominations also try to get Catholics to agree to their way of thinking. Those Catholics don’t know their faith well enough to be able to fight against that. They don’t know what’s really true and what’s not. That’s where the infallible Pope and Magisterium comes into play.

Any Catholic can know beyond the shadow of a doubt that Jesus promised all truth to the Church, so they do have the truth - the absolute truth. Other demons have nowhere to turn in a situation where there is some confusion about what the truth is - they have only themselves. Kinda like what you are doing. You are relying on your own understanding (which is faulty) and what YOU think the bible is saying. If you believve in the Church, Sacred Tradition and Scripture, then you must believe the 2000 year old teaching on infallibility or you are nothing more than a ship being tossed about in the sea with no rudder or anchor!

When Peter came out of the boat to walk on water to meet Jesus and he began to sink, Jesus said to him, “Peter, where is your faith?” jfoges, where is your faith in what Jesus promised?

 

[DianJo]

I’m not even going to respond to this because its filled with personal attacks on me. I don’t respond to ad hominem arguments.

This is not a personal attack, I don’t do such things. I’m only telling you you are acting like a child and not listening to anything anyone is telling you. All you keep saying is, “No, it doesn’t say that!” That’s very frustrating when all these people here are trying to explain the teaching to you and you just keep denying it.

 

[jfoges]

I really don’t have a problem with having a Magisterium. My only problem is the idea that it is infallible.

I just don’t understand the problem. If you are okay with having the Pope and Magesterium, I don’t get the part about infallibility!

If they are not infallible and cannot protect, with authority from God, the Deposit of Faith, then we are just like all the protestant demoninations. We can make up stuff to reconcile our own ideas about who Jesus is.

There are thousands of demons out there that can’t even agree on whether Baptism is regenerative or not, whether or not confession by a priest is necessary, whether priests are even neccessary, the sacraments are necessary - no, they are not…how confusing is that???

These denominations also try to get Catholics to agree to their way of thinking. Those Catholics don’t know their faith well enough to be able to fight against that. They don’t know what’s really true and what’s not. That’s where the infallible Pope and Magisterium comes into play.

Any Catholic can know beyond the shadow of a doubt that Jesus promised all truth to the Church, so they do have the truth - the absolute truth. Other demons have nowhere to turn in a situation where there is some confusion about what the truth is - they have only themselves. Kinda like what you are doing. You are relying on your own understanding (which is faulty) and what YOU think the bible is saying. If you believve in the Church, Sacred Tradition and Scripture, then you must believe the 2000 year old teaching on infallibility or you are nothing more than a ship being tossed about in the sea with no rudder or anchor!

When Peter came out of the boat to walk on water to meet Jesus and he began to sink, Jesus said to him, “Peter, where is your faith?” jfoges, where is your faith in what Jesus promised?

First of all, I want to explain that saying the Magisterium is not infallible does not make one a Protestant. This seems to be what you are insinuating. It also doesn’t lead to doctrinal chaos.

Again, the Magisterium can only teach that which is already believed by the Church. The Magisterium can’t tell us anything we don’t already know. The reason Protestants have doctrinal chaos about baptism is because some of them believe in scripture only without tradition. Also they do not have a Magisterium to guide them.

I am all for having a Magisterium of the church to guide us, however I think it would be good for the bishops and pope to have the humilty to admit when they make errors in their actions, or teachings.

I also think it is necessary for the Catholic faithful to obey the dictates of their conscience in matters of morals.

The Catholic faithful are all successors to the Apostles as long as we share the faith of the Apostles. The spirit of truth that was promised to remain with the Church remains in the Church as a whole.

 

[Ne_OrangeKnight]

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.

The Magisterium certainly did give us the Bible. It was the 1st century magisterium that wrote it, and the Magisterium in later centuries that compiled it. There was actually a good deal of debate as to what was and wasn’t Holy Scripture; St. Jerome, for example argued against the inclusion of some books which St. Augustine felt should be included. Ultimately, it was Pope St. Damasus I who settled the matter at the Council of Rome in 382. After that, the arguments ceased. In The Decree of Damasus (scroll down a bit this site for the whole thing home.inreach.com/bstanley/canon.htm)), the pope spelled out the canon of Scripture, and closed with the following:

“[T]he holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other Churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven.’”

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.

Well, not only did a 4th century pope seem to think that Jesus gave him infallible teaching authority through St. Peter (by quoting the exact passage in question), but, if you were at Mass this past Sunday, you would have heard a reading from Isaiah 22:19-23. Here, Eliakim is to be made master of the king’s palace, the steward of the king’s house. This office meant that Eliakim would act with the king’s full authority over the palace when the latter was away. He could tell the servants exactly what to do and what not to do. He essentially was the king of the palace when his master was out.

This is the exact same promise that Jesus made to Peter; note the great similarity between Jesus’s words and those in Isaiah. Peter had Jesus’s full authority while the Master is away, and this authority has been transmitted from pope to pope since Peter.

Sam, the Neon Orange Knight

 

[Nita]

I really don’t have a problem with having a Magisterium. My only problem is the idea that it is infallible.

Infallibility is NECESSARY.

Without infallibility the truth could not be known by Christians. Jesus did not include clarifications to the multitude of contradicting interpretations of His teaching that He knew would arise over the centuries.

Without infallibility, Christianity would not exist — Christianity being the teaching that Jesus Christ is God (second Person of the Trinity) Incarnate. If you doubt that, then you need to read early Church history.

The early infallible declarations had to do with the nature of the Incarnation and the Trinity. The various heretical positions were interpretations held and put forward by Christians, including bishops. For instance, at one point more than half the bishops supported the Arian heresy – which serves as an example of why the power of the keys given to the Pope is so critical. His official concurrence is necessary for a teaching to be infallible.

Nita

 

[jfoges]

The Magisterium certainly did give us the Bible. It was the 1st century magisterium that wrote it, and the Magisterium in later centuries that compiled it. There was actually a good deal of debate as to what was and wasn’t Holy Scripture; St. Jerome, for example argued against the inclusion of some books which St. Augustine felt should be included. Ultimately, it was Pope St. Damasus I who settled the matter at the Council of Rome in 382. After that, the arguments ceased. In The Decree of Damasus (scroll down a bit this site for the whole thing home.inreach.com/bstanley/canon.htm)), the pope spelled out the canon of Scripture, and closed with the following:

“[T]he holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other Churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven.’”

Well, not only did a 4th century pope seem to think that Jesus gave him infallible teaching authority through St. Peter (by quoting the exact passage in question), but, if you were at Mass this past Sunday, you would have heard a reading from Isaiah 22:19-23. Here, Eliakim is to be made master of the king’s palace, the steward of the king’s house. This office meant that Eliakim would act with the king’s full authority over the palace when the latter was away. He could tell the servants exactly what to do and what not to do. He essentially was the king of the palace when his master was out.

This is the exact same promise that Jesus made to Peter; note the great similarity between Jesus’s words and those in Isaiah. Peter had Jesus’s full authority while the Master is away, and this authority has been transmitted from pope to pope since Peter.

Sam, the Neon Orange Knight

The Magisterium did not write the Bible! The Bible was written under the inspiration of God. It is revelation! The magisterium cannot give us a revelation. The canon was compiled based on what was in use by Christians already. Every book in the bible was already regarded as authentic by Christians before the biblical canon was decided upon by a council.

As for your quote from Pope Damasus, he know where says that the Pope is infallible. He only says that the Bishop of Rome holds the Petrine office of leader of the Church. I do not dispute this. I am all for recognizing the Petrine office in Rome. That is why I am in communion with Rome. I just think the Pope is primer inter pares, first among equals, not infallible.

 

[DianJo]

This is so unbelieveably frustrating! jfoges, please go study early church history if you really want anyone else to take you seriously.

Who do you think the early Magesterium was? It was Peter, Paul, John, the Apostles. Their successors, Polycarp, Ignatius of Antioch, and many more. They were the Bishops of the Church. Those that came in later centuries were the ones that canoized the bible as we have it today. The OT scriptures were the scriptures (Septuigant) Jesus and the Apostles read in the Temple.

You are correct, however, in saying that the books of the bible were floating around as writings and that there were many. It was by Jesus’ promise of the Holy Spirit (infallibility) that the Magesterium compiled all the writings floating around. They were the ones who weeded out those writing not inspried by God. There were writings around that claimed that as a child Jesus could not control himself and killed another child out of anger and then brought him back to life. Does that sound God inspired to you? That’s in the gospel of Thomas (Gnostic). There were many more heretical writings making the rounds as well.

At a time when the people were trying to figure out who this Jesus was, how in the world were they supposed to make heads or tails of these writings? Which ones came from the Apostles or their successors? Which ones were true, which were not? It was the Magesterium that gathered all these writings and determined which ones were God-inspired and good to be read to the faithful. They compiled them into one book - The Bible. This was not until the 4th century.

The Church kept the Septuigant and then after sifting through numerous writings after Jesus’ death, compiled all the God-inspired writings - the New Testament that was to be used in the churches.

The bible came from the Sacred Traditions of the Church put together by the Magesterium in the 4th century.
If you deny this, you deny documented history. All you have to do is read it.

 

[DianJo]

The Magisterium did not write the Bible! This is what I mean about you acting like a child and putting your fingers in your ears!! The fact that the bible was compiled by the Church is not disputed, historically or otherwise. You don’t know your history.

The Bible was written under the inspiration of God. It is revelation! The magisterium cannot give us a revelation. The canon was compiled based on what was in use by Christians already.
There was no canon until the Magesterium put it together!

Every book in the bible was already regarded as authentic by Christians before the biblical canon was decided upon by a council.
This is not true! With hundreds of writing floating around, no one was sure what was authentic and what was not. There were may heretical writings amongst the good ones.

As for your quote from Pope Damasus, he know where says that the Pope is infallible. He only says that the Bishop of Rome holds the Petrine office of leader of the Church.
It is specifically because of this Petrine Office as leader of the Church that infallibility attaches otherwise the Pope would be just the Bishop of Rome like the Bishop of your diocese.

I do not dispute this. I am all for recognizing the Petrine office in Rome. That is why I am in communion with Rome. I just think the Pope is primer inter pares, first among equals, not infallible.
It is because of the charism of infallibility that you have a bible at all. Otherwise, you can not know what is true and what is not.

 

[pnewton]

. Every book in the bible was already regarded as authentic by Christians before the biblical canon was decided upon by a council.

This is simply untrue. The only reason the Church addressed the idea of the canon was due to controversy. Revelation was not considered inspired by some. The Didache was in wider use. Hebrews lacked authorship authority.

In what way are you Catholic? I ask because you deny a basic tenet of the faith in this thread and now you come up with a classic protestant argument concerning the canon of scripture. I have never heard anyone make the statement like you did above that was not already a protestant of some flavor.

 

[cathopologist]

In what way are you Catholic? I ask because you deny a basic tenet of the faith in this thread and now you come up with a classic protestant argument concerning the canon of scripture. I have never heard anyone make the statement like you did above that was not already a protestant of some flavor.

I suspect he may be leaning somewhere between Orthodoxy and Presbyterianism. Or he could indeed be a liberal “catholic” or even an Old Catholic. It’s easy for a Catholic to fall away from the Church if they rely on Hans Kung too much.

 

[jfoges]

This is so unbelieveably frustrating! jfoges, please go study early church history if you really want anyone else to take you seriously.

Who do you think the early Magesterium was? It was Peter, Paul, John, the Apostles. Their successors, Polycarp, Ignatius of Antioch, and many more. They were the Bishops of the Church. Those that came in later centuries were the ones that canoized the bible as we have it today. The OT scriptures were the scriptures (Septuigant) Jesus and the Apostles read in the Temple.

You are correct, however, in saying that the books of the bible were floating around as writings and that there were many. It was by Jesus’ promise of the Holy Spirit (infallibility) that the Magesterium compiled all the writings floating around. They were the ones who weeded out those writing not inspried by God. There were writings around that claimed that as a child Jesus could not control himself and killed another child out of anger and then brought him back to life. Does that sound God inspired to you? That’s in the gospel of Thomas (Gnostic). There were many more heretical writings making the rounds as well.

At a time when the people were trying to figure out who this Jesus was, how in the world were they supposed to make heads or tails of these writings? Which ones came from the Apostles or their successors? Which ones were true, which were not? It was the Magesterium that gathered all these writings and determined which ones were God-inspired and good to be read to the faithful. They compiled them into one book - The Bible. This was not until the 4th century.

The Church kept the Septuigant and then after sifting through numerous writings after Jesus’ death, compiled all the God-inspired writings - the New Testament that was to be used in the churches.

The bible came from the Sacred Traditions of the Church put together by the Magesterium in the 4th century.
If you deny this, you deny documented history. All you have to do is read it.

You are wrong on several accounts. First of all, the original Apostles were no the Magisterium. They provided the deposit of faith itself, which the Magisterium is supposed to teach from. You seem to be unable to distinguish between the Magisterium, and Divine Revelation. These are two completly different things. Revelation is God revealing himself to us. The Magisterium is the bishops and Pope teaching us what God has already revealed about himself.

As for the Canon of Scripture, the ecumenical councils that decided on the Canon were just ordinary men who used rational thinking to determine what books were authenitic and which were not. They looked at the universality of the books in the Church, and the antiquity of them, the closeness to the Apostles. I am not objecting the Magisterium teaching us which books are authentic. However, this need not be an infallible teaching.

We do need a Magisterium to guide us in our faith and morals. However, this Magsterium cannot be infallible. Only God and Divine Revelation itself can be considered infallible.

 

[wmscott]

Non-Catholics come into these forums all the time to debate Catholic doctrine. Why did you feel you needed to misrepresent yourself to carry on a debate about papal infallibility ?

Agree, I think that Jfoges is really a wolf in sheeps clothing.