Pope Struck Dead before Teaching Error?

[Ahimsa]

If he attempts to define error (i.e. “I pronouce, declare and define that Jesus was two persons”, he will be prevented from doing so. Death is one way of doing that. Or God could simply change the Pope’s mind.

Or, one could simply realize that the definition of Jesus as “two persons” is directly contradictory to Church dogma, and thus, even if a Pope were to define Jesus thusly, using the most definitive language possible, one could know that either (1) the Pope’s language did not actually meet the standards for ex cathedra; or (2) if the language did meet the standards for ex cathedra, then at the moment the Pope proclaimed his definition, he ceased being Pope – since a Pope, by definition, cannot proclaim ex cathedra teaching contra to Church dogma.

So, God could allow the Pope to remain alive, and need not change the mind of the Pope. It would be the responsibility of the Church to determine if the Pope’s language met the ex cathedra requirements, and the implications all that implies.

 

[TMC]

Or, one could simply realize that the definition of Jesus as “two persons” is directly contradictory to Church dogma, and thus, even if a Pope were to define Jesus thusly, using the most definitive language possible, one could know that either (1) the Pope’s language did not actually meet the standards for ex cathedra; or (2) if the language did meet the standards for ex cathedra, then at the moment the Pope proclaimed his definition, he ceased being Pope – since a Pope, by definition, cannot proclaim ex cathedra teaching contra to Church dogma.

So, God could allow the Pope to remain alive, and need not change the mind of the Pope. It would be the responsibility of the Church to determine if the Pope’s language met the ex cathedra requirements, and the implications all that implies.

Perhaps I misunderstand you, because I read this post to say that a Pope’s otherwise clearly ex cathedra statement an be declared incorrect if the Church later determines he was wrong. Is that what you mean? Because that would make the doctrine of papal infallibility a dead letter.

 

[PC_Master]

So, God could allow the Pope to remain alive, and need not change the mind of the Pope. It would be the responsibility of the Church to determine if the Pope’s language met the ex cathedra requirements, and the implications all that implies.

If infallibility is a protection by God of his church, then if a validly elected pope (such as the current pope) made a declaration which fit “ex cathedra” and was clearly wrong, you have quite a conundrum. At which point did God stop protecting this pope from error, and why didn’t all the bishops of the church recognize that had happened previously to the faulty declaration?

 

[VociMike]

So God will kill a Pope, but can’t seem to cure my friend’s cancer.

That’s just awesome theology.

By your reasoning, describe how God “should” behave with respect to any and all suffering (including, of course, death). Lay out for us your alternative God.

This is not defensive response. If you actually attempt to go through this exercise you will learn quite a bit.

 

[Ahimsa]

Perhaps I misunderstand you, because I read this post to say that a Pope’s otherwise clearly ex cathedra statement an be declared incorrect if the Church later determines he was wrong. Is that what you mean? Because that would make the doctrine of papal infallibility a dead letter.

I think whether a statement is really ex cathedra is often a matter of debate. If you say that statement x was not really ex cathedra, then no problem. If you say the opposite, then that conclusion has its own implications. So, even within the Church, theologians and bishops might debate whether a statement was really ex cathedra. Sometimes it’s clear (as in the statement on the Assumption), but other times its not (Humanae Vitae?). The Church might spend a few decades hashing out the arguments pro and con; and eventually come to some conclusion.

So, the real debate lies not in determining whether an ex cathedra statement is wrong; but in determining whether a statement is ex cathedra in the first place.

 

[Ahimsa]

If infallibility is a protection by God of his church, then if a validly elected pope (such as the current pope) made a declaration which fit “ex cathedra” and was clearly wrong, you have quite a conundrum.

I think someone in the Vatican, or somewhere, would catch the error if it were clearly wrong. The debate often occurs in situations where the statement is not clearly wrong, like in situations where the statement merely clarifies a belief already held by the Church. In fact, papal infallibility only applies to statements clarifying, defining, or otherwise commenting on beliefs already held by the Church.

In addition, think about what is needed in order for the Pope to make a declaration of papal infallibility, or any other statement. Many other people (theologians, bishops, lay-people, etc.) all take part in any official proclamation by the Pope. If the Pope were to state something clearly and obviously wrong, then there would be numerous individuals ready to correct such a statement. An official declaration by the Pope is always the result of a large cadre of parties working together.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Rather interesting is that God had to resort to the death of the pope (whether by his own doing, or allowing another thing to come to pass) to protect his church. Apparently this pope was not praying and listening to the instruction of God, and was about to do something that was wrong.

Perhaps this Pope wasn’t listening to God on this issue. So what? There have been popes who were real scoundrels but that doesn’t change a darn thing about papal infallibilty. It must really grate on you to see how the Catholic Church is protected by Almighty God like this…

Perhaps one might interpret this as God protecting his church, but more interestingly, it makes me wonder how you can have any sort of faith that the pope will remain in God’s will through much prayer, etc, if he hasn’t in the past.

Perhaps one might interpret this as evidence of the pope’s failure to remain in God’s will through much prayer, but more interestingly, it makes me wonder how you can continue to deny that God has protected the Catholic Church from error for 2,000 years.

At the end of the day, it does not matter a whit whether the pope remains in God’s will or not. What does matter is that no pope ever has or ever will teach error formally.

Popes come and go, some good, some bad, some great, but the Catholic Church stands unbowed and unshaken until the end of the age…just as Jesus Christ promised so long ago.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[Randy_Carson]

If infallibility is a protection by God of his church, then if a validly elected pope (such as the current pope) made a declaration which fit “ex cathedra” and was clearly wrong, you have quite a conundrum. At which point did God stop protecting this pope from error, and why didn’t all the bishops of the church recognize that had happened previously to the faulty declaration?

Unfortunately for those who long for the fall of the Catholic Church, this conundrum remains a phantom of their dreams for it has never and will never occur.

Consequently, your hypothetical question has no real meaning.

 

[guanophore]

So God will kill a Pope, but can’t seem to cure my friend’s cancer.

That’s just awesome theology.

Don’t forget that death can be the ultimate healing.

2 Cor 5:8
we would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord.

 

[guanophore]

Rather interesting is that God had to resort to the death of the pope (whether by his own doing, or allowing another thing to come to pass) to protect his church. Apparently this pope was not praying and listening to the instruction of God, and was about to do something that was wrong.

Well, let’s see. God had to resort the the death of His Son, to establish the Church, either by His own doing or allowing it to come to pass. Does that mean that Jesus was not praying, or was doing something wrong?

Perhaps one might interpret this as God protecting his church, but more interestingly, it makes me wonder how you can have any sort of faith that the pope will remain in God’s will through much prayer, etc, if he hasn’t in the past.

Indeed! How can one have any faith in any of the Apostles, because 11 of the 12 abandoned Him when faced with death. Good thing that God’s power is made perfect in weakness!

 

[porthos11]

Or, one could simply realize that the definition of Jesus as “two persons” is directly contradictory to Church dogma, and thus, even if a Pope were to define Jesus thusly, using the most definitive language possible, one could know that either (1) the Pope’s language did not actually meet the standards for ex cathedra; or (2) if the language did meet the standards for ex cathedra, then at the moment the Pope proclaimed his definition, he ceased being Pope – since a Pope, by definition, cannot proclaim ex cathedra teaching contra to Church dogma.

This will never happen. A validly elected Pope remains Pope until death or voluntary abdication. There is no “cease to be Pope” outside of this.

And as for “really” ex cathedra, the language is so specific that there’s no question about it.

Which is why I kinda doubt the veracity of the Sixtus V story, because I’m doubtful about the contents of the bull (did he say, “pronounce, declare, and define?”) and the matter at hand (that the erratic Vulgate was merely correct or was “the” edition inspired by God? the former does not count; the latter, maybe).

Nevertheless, death of a Pope is still a valid way of ensuring infallibility.

 

[Ahimsa]

This will never happen. A validly elected Pope remains Pope until death or voluntary abdication. There is no “cease to be Pope” outside of this.

Do you have an infallible statement to back this up?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Do you have an infallible statement to back this up?

This is an issue of canon law, I think.

Why would an infallible statement be necessary?

 

[Strider]

This will never happen. A validly elected Pope remains Pope until death or voluntary abdication. There is no “cease to be Pope” outside of this.

And as for “really” ex cathedra, the language is so specific that there’s no question about it.

Which is why I kinda doubt the veracity of the Sixtus V story, because I’m doubtful about the contents of the bull (did he say, “pronounce, declare, and define?”) and the matter at hand (that the erratic Vulgate was merely correct or was “the” edition inspired by God? the former does not count; the latter, maybe).

Nevertheless, death of a Pope is still a valid way of ensuring infallibility.

If I understand your argument, it doesn’t matter. The Bible itself is infallible; therefore, an error-filled Bible promulgated, let alone translated, by a pope, would fit the infalible bill.

 

[porthos11]

If I understand your argument, it doesn’t matter. The Bible itself is infallible; therefore, an error-filled Bible promulgated, let alone translated, by a pope, would fit the infalible bill.

No, not necessarily. The Bible is not infallible; it is inerrant.

Promulgating an error-filled Bible does not necessarily fit the matter of faith or morals, because merely promulgating a Bible edition for Catholic use is not defining anything, and infallibility isn’t engaged.

But if the Pope attempted to define an error-filled Bible as the only translation, say, inspired by God and that only this can be the valid source of doctrine, then that may fit the bill, and given the other conditions, infallibility may kick in.

 

[porthos11]

Do you have an infallible statement to back this up?

I don’t think there is any. What is applicable is Canon Law.

1. The First See is judged by no one.

This canon has been in place in some form even before 1983.

 

[RomanCrusader]

In all other regards though Sixtus V was an excellent Pope. His only failures were failing to dethrone the heretic Queen Elizabeth I of England and this heretical translation.

 

[Ahimsa]

I don’t think there is any. What is applicable is Canon Law.

1. The First See is judged by no one.

This canon has been in place in some form even before 1983.

How far is Canon Law 1404 taken?

How is “judged” defined in this case?

It seems that 1404 might be making a distinction between (1) the human person who happens to occupy the position of Pope; and (2) the First See, the sacred institution of the Papacy. Thus, the human person of the Pope may be judged; but the sacred institution of the Papacy may not be (since it was instituted by Christ).

In any event, it seems a necessary part of just being “smart” that you would “judge” anything anyone says, to see if what they say matches Scripture, Tradition, and Reason, and whatever other standards one chooses.

 

[porthos11]

How far is Canon Law 1404 taken?

How is “judged” defined in this case?

It seems that 1404 might be making a distinction between (1) the human person who happens to occupy the position of Pope; and (2) the First See, the sacred institution of the Papacy. Thus, the human person of the Pope may be judged; but the sacred institution of the Papacy may not be (since it was instituted by Christ).

The see is always embodied by its bishop. No one has the right to judge the bishop of Rome.

In any event, it seems a necessary part of just being “smart” that you would “judge” anything anyone says, to see if what they say matches Scripture, Tradition, and Reason, and whatever other standards one chooses.

It’s possible and permissible to form an opinion about the Pope, his statements, his prudence, or his lifestyle. But when he exercises his authority, we are called to assent, be it of faith, intellect, or will, as the case demands.

But no one, that is, no one, has the right or authority to declare the Pope guilty of anything, no matter how scandalous or obvious, much less penalize him, or to declare that he ceased to be Pope outside of death or abdication.

That’s never been a problem for me because I’m Catholic, and he’s the Pope, and I obey. Anything else is rebellion.

 

[guanophore]

Rather interesting is that God had to resort to the death of the pope (whether by his own doing, or allowing another thing to come to pass) to protect his church. Apparently this pope was not praying and listening to the instruction of God, and was about to do something that was wrong.

This seems judgemental of you. Who are you to discern his sincerity of prayer?

P

erhaps one might interpret this as God protecting his church, but more interestingly, it makes me wonder how you can have any sort of faith that the pope will remain in God’s will through much prayer, etc, if he hasn’t in the past.

This is a misconstruing of our faith. We have faith in Jesus Christ, as the Head of His Church, and the Cornerstone. He is the author and finisher. To the extent that the Pope is in union with Christ, we can have trust in union with the Pope.