Question on Papal Infallibility!

[GiannaMarie_JMJ]

My Protestant boyfriend and I were on the subject of Papal Infallibily, and he asked me this question, " So if Catholics believe that the Pope is infallible with Faith and Morals, what about the three ‘bad’ Popes, especially Pope Leo X during the Reformation. Wasn’t he teaching Indulgences the wrong way?? Wouldnt that make him wrong in Church teachings ???"
I told him that I would get back to him on that because I wasnt sure myself how to answer it correctly.
So if any Catholic here has the answer to this question, please let me know!

Thank you and God Bless,

Gianna

 

[mark_a]

bump

 

[Ron_Conte]

Papal infallibility means that the Pope is able to teach without any error, on questions of faith and morals, whose answers are found in Tradition and Scripture. Certain conditions must be met for a papal teaching to be infallible.

Otherwise, when the Pope teaches, his teaching is non-infallible, and subject to a limited possibility of error.

But when the Pope is expressing a theological opinion, or a judgment about temporal matters, then his opinion and judgment is fallible.

So the Pope is not personally infallible. Papal infallibility means that he is able to teach infallibly, under certain conditions.

 

[Verbum]

Hi Gianna,

Infallibility is first of all a characteristic of the Church. It results from the promise of Christ when he said that he is with the Church until the end of the world. The Church. on essential matters of doctrine and morality, binding all Catholics, cannot remain in error.

The pope’s infallibility is an extension of the Church’s infallibility. It has nothing to do with him personally, whether he is a bad person or a saint. It means that, under certain circumstances, when he speaks officially and solemnly on matters of doctrine and morality, as spokesperson for the Church, he cannot make a mistake, and his teaching is binding on all Catholics.

This prerogative is a result of his positions as successor of Peter, to whom Christ gave “the keys of the kingdom”, meaning spiritual power over the whole church.

Is this clear to you now ?

Verbum

 

[GiannaMarie_JMJ]

Thanks so much for the answers.

Here is another question pertaining to my first. Did Pope Leo X teach indulgences incorrectly or was it just the people misunderstanding what an indulgence is?

 

[JimG]

If I recall correctly, the teaching on indulgences was not incorrect, but the practical application of it was being abused.

It would be as though the parish priest offered to say Mass for my intentions, for a price of $1,000 per pop. There’s nothing wrong with the doctrine; there would be a lot wrong with the practice.

Or a TV evangelist offering to pray for those who send in a generous donation. There’s nothing wrong with praying for supporters, doctrinally. But there’s a lot wrong with putting a price on spiritual things. That’s the sin of simony.

 

[GiannaMarie_JMJ]

Thanks for the response

So what you are saying is Pope LEo X should not have asked for money to build the Cathedral, as part as the indulgence?

 

[JimG]

Thanks for the response

So what you are saying is Pope LEo X should not have asked for money to build the Cathedral, as part as the indulgence?

I’m not an expert on that part of Church history, so perhaps you should look this up somewhere else. It’s OK to have a fundraiser, but not ok to sell indulgences. And I’m not sure if that was Leo’s idea or merely Johann Tetzel’s idea.

 

[Monica4316]

Not everything the Pope says is ex cathedra, which is infallible. In fact, the Pope speaks ex cathedra very rarely.

the ‘bad’ Popes usually did not pronounce any dogmas ex cathedra, even if they talked about their opinions.

This might help
davidmacd.com/catholic/pope.htm

God bless

 

[DOShea]

There was a lot of confusion about the indulgences, their purpose, and how they worked. One of the ways one could do a type of penance was via the giving of alms. This was perfectly legitimate, and there was really nothing wrong with the collected money being used to erect St. Peters. Where the problem came in is the focus on the monetary giving aspect and the glossing over of the penance part of the gift, so much so that there were stories circulating - some scholars dispute them - that this was being portrayed at what one might call “the parish” level as simply buying souls of departed relatives out of purgatory.

Part of this problem resulted from the fact that these various kingdoms and districts were not ALL allowing these indulgences to be sold. So you can imagine the situation today if iPhones were selling on one side of a bridge separating two towns for $299, but across the bridge they were $149. Likewise, people in the districts where these indulgences were not allowed to be sold would flock to the places they were sold, and of course this only magnified the perception that this wasn’t about souls at all, only a giant fund raising effort and no more.

But it was always supposed to be about souls and offering of some form of penance by the living to expedite their time in purgatory. It didn’t help when these were characterized with some kind of colloquial saying along the lines of “a coin goes into the pot and a soul flys up to heaven.” Of course it didn’t work like it, and no serious person with an ounce of faith would ever believe it would. However there were divisive forces at work all around these occurances, and this served as good an opportunity as any to assail the church.

Did the Church do everything right? Probably not, as it could have done more to ensure those going out collecting were doing more to emphasize the correct teaching. But that is also Monday-morning quarterbacking. They didn’t have the internet and cell phones then, and if things went sour it stayed that way for a long time until word got back and action was taken. Were people in the church going overboard with it? Almost certainly they were. But do their actions speak for them, or does it reflect the entire Church’s teaching, policy, and intent? The latter. I think. is a very very hard case to make.

 

[Verbum]

Hi Gianna,

Here is another question pertaining to my first. Did Pope Leo X teach indulgences incorrectly or was it just the people misunderstanding what an indulgence is?

It was not the pope that was mistaken but the preachers who told people that all theirs sins would be forgiven if they gave money. Luther, in his 95 theses says this :

1. Therefore those preachers of indulgences are in error, who say that by the pope’s indulgences a man is freed from every penalty, and saved;
2. Bishops and curates are bound to admit the commissaries of apostolic pardons, with all reverence.
3. But still more are they bound to strain all their eyes and attend with all their ears, lest these men preach their own dreams instead of the commission of the pope.

iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/web/ninetyfive.html

In other words, those preachers betrayed the pope by sayhing or implying that you could actually buy salvation.

Verbum