second question for our non-catholic brethern

[pocohombre]

In that case, who is the “super Pope” who decides he’s wrong? No - we have to obey him because he’s in charge. His authority comes from Christ and can’t be removed by human opinions.

Not if he tells you to do something that is wrong, that is the whole point of infallibility, that he can’t be wrong. That he won’t declare anything wrong ex cathedra. But wasn’t one pope disobeyed, even declared a heretic and by whom, what super pope ? Didn’t Cyprian withstand a pope on a matter ? Maybe it wasn’t an ex cathedra declaration he resisted.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

Far from it; no - rather, that he is to be obeyed even if he is not infallible, just as parents and police officers must be obeyed, though not infallible.

Thank God he is infallible, though.

Good Evening JMcrae: That’s an interesting ethical code, however, I’m suggesting that we are all accountable for our own actions, and that we are not absolved either by secular or moral authority for the consequences of blind obedience. My opinion is in conflict with yours for a number of reasons. One good example of why I disagree is that following orders or being obedient very rightly (in my opinion) wasn’t a convincing defense at Nuremberg. Additionally, The Milgram Obedience Experiment, which was a peer reviewed and widely published study on the tendency for people to commit dangerous and morally reprehensible acts in obedience to what they perceived as even a hint of authority that wasn’t even at a highly binding level should be cause for anyone to carefully consider following authority for authority’s sake.

Thanks,
Gary

 

[jmcrae]

Good Evening JMcrae: That’s an interesting ethical code, however, I’m suggesting that we are all accountable for our own actions, and that we are not absolved either by secular or moral authority for the consequences of blind obedience.

In my experience, we have less to fear from blind obedience than from those who, out of fear of blind obedience, wreak havoc in everyone’s lives around them with their doubts and disobedience.

I would rather see a girl blindly obey her father when he says, “Do not go out with that boy,” than see her disobey him out of fear of losing her autonomy, or because she can’t see what her father sees and therefore chooses to deny its existence, and (in either case) end up dead in a ditch. Although to be fair, she did do it “her way,” and she was never blindly obedient.

 

[jmcrae]

Not if he tells you to do something that is wrong, that is the whole point of infallibility, that he can’t be wrong. That he won’t declare anything wrong ex cathedra. But wasn’t one pope disobeyed, even declared a heretic and by whom, what super pope ? Didn’t Cyprian withstand a pope on a matter ? Maybe it wasn’t an ex cathedra declaration he resisted.

If it were, the whole system would be shut down. No one doubts that we have had bad Popes - the miracle is that the Church is still here.

 

[pocohombre]

Thank you Pocohombre.

Good Afternoon everyone. I hope all is well today. What is our response to what Pocohombre has said? If I were to take a strictly logical view of the decree, wherein I would consider both the social and political pressures and constraints of the time it was written, it seems that Pocohombre has asked some interesting questions. For instance, if the reasons for coming out with such a decree at that particular moment in history are other than what Pocohombre has offered as possibilities, what are the reasons? Again, I am looking for some polite and rational discussion, and I think that both Protestants and Catholic participants on the thread have done an excellent job at that so far. In that same spirit of mutual open dialog, I am wondering if we have a response to what Pocohombre has said. So far, to my understanding, our response has been that the Pope is infallible even when the Pope is wrong. I am offering here (kindly and respectfully) that I don’t find this a compelling answer. Do we have another?
Thanks, and happy Sunday to everyone!
Gary

Thanks.Can you imagine Peter with an army ? Yet isn’t this what the pope had before 1870 AD ? Hard to imagine those days. I am used to today, our recent times (a benevolent, spiritual pope, no politics except bully pulpit, think fall of Iron Curtain). Perhaps that is what C.S. Lewis meant with ,"Those ignorant of history are slaves to the recent past". It is just hard to imagine a pope being more than than what we see today. I know some say really strong stuff against the pope, and I imagine it is due to history, when popes called for inquisitions, and were not always democratic, or for many freedoms we take for granted today. Many of these negatives had their last fling in the 1800"s and flickered out early 1900,s. I can get more specific to negatives but this is enough for now, and I only tell you cause it seems you want an honest look into a protestant thought. It is hard for me to move on, to judge more astutely when reading historical stuff. I know it is probably true ( historical negatives). But perhaps it is a bit like the reality of hell. I believe it, but enough ? Enough to really feel for surrounding neighbors headed there ? If I have an internal struggle it is that the history of the CC is worse than what I want to admit. Yet some of my fellow Protestants who are tougher on CC than I am, calling it a cult or not having Christian gospel anymore, are the nicest and kindest to Catholic individuals,sharing their faith in Christ… Anyways, to recap, am interested in reaction to the timing of infallibility decree of !870 ? Next we can discuss perhaps the “consent of fathers”’ or lack of it on the matter, which also colors a protestants view on the matter.

 

[pocohombre]

If it were, the whole system would be shut down. No one doubts that we have had bad Popes - the miracle is that the Church is still here.

Even more of a miracle if you think pope isn’t, wasn’t necessary, as in Orthodoxy.( I mean today’s definition of Pope).

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

In my experience, we have less to fear from blind obedience than from those who, out of fear of blind obedience, wreak havoc in everyone’s lives around them with their doubts and disobedience.

I would rather see a girl blindly obey her father when he says, “Do not go out with that boy,” than see her disobey him out of fear of losing her autonomy, or because she can’t see what her father sees and therefore chooses to deny its existence, and (in either case) end up dead in a ditch. Although to be fair, she did do it “her way,” and she was never blindly obedient.

Dear Jmcrae: Your example fails to resonate with me. To me it seems that you have used an example of what might be good advice from a parent to illustrate how blind obedience is preferable to applying one’s own judgment. The problem with that whole line of thinking is that there are all sorts of parents out there. Meth-heads, child molesters, criminals, and what have you. They set their children to the task of stealing for them, running drugs for them and a litany of bad acts. You and I both know that children shouldn’t blindly obey such people because of their role as parents. Much in the same way that a child shouldn’t blindly obey someone who is abusing them.

By using an absolute - obey your parents, obey the police, and so forth without regard to whether they are right or wrong is just arguing for the sake of arguing, and a very bad attempt at it as well. Please, let’s not do that here. Procohombre has brought up some good points that still need to be addressed, and this walk around the block is starting to look like it might be something of an avoidance measure.

Thanks,
Gary

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

Some NECESSARY information my friend,

“Infallibility” MUST be declared as such to be “infallible” CANON’s 751-752-753

It is an absolute impossibility for the POPE to TEACH anything on matters of:

1. Faith belief
2. Morals

And be wrong: CAN’T HAPPEN!

A Pope CAN error on OTHER issues; and “church practices”

Patrick

Hi Patrick: For the sake od discussion, I have posted what I believe to be the canons you are referring to below:

Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.

Can. 752 Although not an assent of faith, a religious submission of the intellect and will must be given to a doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of bishops declares concerning faith or morals when they exercise the authentic magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it by definitive act; therefore, the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid those things which do not agree with it.

Can. 753 Although the bishops who are in communion with the head and members of the college, whether individually or joined together in conferences of bishops or in particular councils, do not possess infallibility in teaching, they are authentic teachers and instructors of the faith for the Christian faithful entrusted to their care; the Christian faithful are bound to adhere with religious submission of mind to the authentic magisterium of their bishops.

Are these the right ones? If so, I thought it would be good to post them so they could be entered into the discussion. I had never seen these - I looked them up based on your directions.

Bless you too and thanks for all the background information Patrick!

Gary

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

Thanks.Can you imagine Peter with an army ? Yet isn’t this what the pope had before 1870 AD ? Hard to imagine those days. I am used to today, our recent times (a benevolent, spiritual pope, no politics except bully pulpit, think fall of Iron Curtain). Perhaps that is what C.S. Lewis meant with ,"Those ignorant of history are slaves to the recent past". It is just hard to imagine a pope being more than than what we see today. I know some say really strong stuff against the pope, and I imagine it is due to history, when popes called for inquisitions, and were not always democratic, or for many freedoms we take for granted today. Many of these negatives had their last fling in the 1800"s and flickered out early 1900,s. I can get more specific to negatives but this is enough for now, and I only tell you cause it seems you want an honest look into a protestant thought. It is hard for me to move on, to judge more astutely when reading historical stuff. I know it is probably true ( historical negatives). But perhaps it is a bit like the reality of hell. I believe it, but enough ? Enough to really feel for surrounding neighbors headed there ? If I have an internal struggle it is that the history of the CC is worse than what I want to admit. Yet some of my fellow Protestants who are tougher on CC than I am, calling it a cult or not having Christian gospel anymore, are the nicest and kindest to Catholic individuals,sharing their faith in Christ… Anyways, to recap, am interested in reaction to the timing of infallibility decree of !870 ? Next we can discuss perhaps the “consent of fathers”’ or lack of it on the matter, which also colors a protestants view on the matter.

Hi Pocohombre: I think all churches and all people do good and bad things. I’m not here to pass judgment on anyone. I am interested in the Protestant and Catholic views on Apostolic Succession and infallibility. My intent is to explore every possible angle, and I think we have some very good sources on hand in this discussion to do that. I would like to tap into the expertise of all of you, both sides, to peel away every layer politely and with our best reasoning… If agreeable, and if no one objects, at this point I think I would like to examine the actual statements on infallibility and see if I can gain a good grasp of their content. To that end, I have posted what I believe are the content of those documents be (based on direction from Patrick). I am waiting for confirmation that I have the right docs.

Thanks,
Gary

 

[Peter_J]

Gary Sheldrake, I would point out that there are ultramontane Catholics, and not-so-ultramontane Catholics. (In my life I have mostly encountered the former, but I don’t doubt there are plenty of the latter out there too.) Sometimes the difference between the two seems like night-and-day.

 

[PJM]

=pocohombre;11432520]Not if he tells you to do something that is wrong, that is the whole point of infallibility, that he can’t be wrong. That he won’t declare anything wrong ex cathedra. But wasn’t one pope disobeyed, even declared a heretic and by whom, what super pope ? Didn’t Cyprian withstand a pope on a matter ? Maybe it wasn’t an ex cathedra declaration he resisted.

FYI

“Infallibility” applies ONLY to and exclusively to matters TAUGHT; Proclaimed as Infallible and On Faith-beliefs and Moral issues ONLY:thumbsup:

God Bless you,
Patrick

 

[jmcrae]

Dear Jmcrae: Your example fails to resonate with me. To me it seems that you have used an example of what might be good advice from a parent to illustrate how blind obedience is preferable to applying one’s own judgment. The problem with that whole line of thinking is that there are all sorts of parents out there. Meth-heads, child molesters, criminals, and what have you. They set their children to the task of stealing for them, running drugs for them and a litany of bad acts. You and I both know that children shouldn’t blindly obey such people because of their role as parents. Much in the same way that a child shouldn’t blindly obey someone who is abusing them.

By using an absolute - obey your parents, obey the police, and so forth without regard to whether they are right or wrong is just arguing for the sake of arguing, and a very bad attempt at it as well. Please, let’s not do that here. Procohombre has brought up some good points that still need to be addressed, and this walk around the block is starting to look like it might be something of an avoidance measure.

Thanks,
Gary

And how is the child supposed to discern that he has bad parents? Many children decide they have bad parents based on this kind of logic, (mother is “abusive” because she makes me do chores when I would rather be playing) and set out on a life of disobedience that leads to death based on the idea that it’s up to them to decide if what they are asked to do is worthy of obedience.

Children of drug addicts and criminals cannot improve their situation through disobedience; they need help from competent adult authorities.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

And how is the child supposed to discern that he has bad parents? Many children decide they have bad parents based on this kind of logic, (mother is “abusive” because she makes me do chores when I would rather be playing) and set out on a life of disobedience that leads to death based on the idea that it’s up to them to decide if what they are asked to do is worthy of obedience.

Children of drug addicts and criminals cannot improve their situation through disobedience; they need help from competent adult authorities.

-Often times the people in authority that a child can go to are the very people in positions of authority who are abusing them; parents, teachers, clergy, coaches and the like. Many such positions are beacons for predators. And when the predators work for organizations with unchecked power and authority, corruption and cover ups often follow. We have seen enough of that.

-You mentioned police as being someone in authority. It is customary in my family to do public service after graduating from college. I chose to serve on the police force as my service for a few years (one of the best in the country) when I graduated. As a police officer I saw many children who were victims of abuse, and based on real life experience, I think your dismissive attitude about what a child can judge about abuse is not only misguided but dangerous. Most of the kids we saw never had a chance, and we didn’t find out until it was too late. They would end up in the emergency room with ruptured spleens, rectums ripped open, bleeding in the brain, broken ribs and limbs, and often enough - dead. Many of these kids had been to the ER many times before they ended up dead. It’s hard to get custody permanently taken away from a bad parent, and harder still to get testimony from a scared child who thinks he or she has to go home with their abusers. Do you think these kids might have been in a position to question the authority of their moms and dads? Do you think they knew the difference between being made to do chores and getting the life beat out of them? Darn right they did. You may be able to obfuscate with many on forums like this, but I have been out there in the real world and have seen the real deal. I’m not buying that argument for a minute, so can we knock it off?

Thanks,
Gary

 

[pocohombre]

From my understanding there is no unanimous consent of the fathers on Papal infallibility. You find decrees of Church infallibility but not Papal until 14 th century . From what I see this has been said by many Catholics before Vat1. It is not Protestant propaganda. There is no consensus from councils either on the matter. And Cyprian thought every bishop was as authoritative as the bishop of Rome, all successors to Peters’ chair… But as some have said here whether right or wrong (or faithful or not to fathers or councils-me saying that) a good Catholic will submit regardless.

 

[Conor7]

The Pope and Magisterium can error in matters of “church practice” BUT NOT; NEVER-EVER in All matters of Faith belief and Morals. This is the teaching of the CC.

Convenient, no? Your above statement is a matter of faith and not a matter of fact, although you may certainly believe it’s true because of your faith-- and, I’m not saying it’s not true.

I think the crux of the problem for most non-Catholic Christians is that it’s a little like me saying to you, “I’m never wrong.” And, you say, “Prove it.” So I say, “I said I’m never wrong, therefore, I can’t be wrong about never being wrong.”

Make sense? Now I realize that it’s a bit simple, but surely you can see the fuzzy logic.

 

[Faithdancer]

The Pope and Magisterium can error in matters of “church practice” BUT NOT; NEVER-EVER in All matters of Faith belief and Morals. This is the teaching of the CC.

True, this is is the teaching of the Catholic Church. However, there is no basis in Scripture for papal infallibility.

 

[JonNC]

True, this is is the teaching of the Catholic Church. However, there is no basis in Scripture for papal infallibility.

Nor in the Tradition of the early Church.

Jon

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

Hi Patrick: For the sake od discussion, I have posted what I believe to be the canons you are referring to below:

Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.

Can. 752 Although not an assent of faith, a religious submission of the intellect and will must be given to a doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of bishops declares concerning faith or morals when they exercise the authentic magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it by definitive act; therefore, the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid those things which do not agree with it.

Can. 753 Although the bishops who are in communion with the head and members of the college, whether individually or joined together in conferences of bishops or in particular councils, do not possess infallibility in teaching, they are authentic teachers and instructors of the faith for the Christian faithful entrusted to their care; the Christian faithful are bound to adhere with religious submission of mind to the authentic magisterium of their bishops.

Are these the right ones? If so, I thought it would be good to post them so they could be entered into the discussion. I had never seen these - I looked them up based on your directions.

Bless you too and thanks for all the background information Patrick!

Gary

Good morning everyone; Can someone advise as to whether or not I have posted the right statements from the Church on infallibility? Is this all of it, or is there more? I thought it would be helpful to post them and then discuss them point by point so that we might be able to reach some conclusions.

Thanks,
Gary

 

[adf417]

True, this is is the teaching of the Catholic Church. However, there is no basis in Scripture for papal infallibility.

Nor in the Tradition of the early Church.

Jon

If you two can agree on these two statements, why are you of two different faiths? Are not these statements the same thing keeping the division among Anglicans-Lutherans? If you can agree on this then what does it ultimately mean?

Peace!!!

 

[Randy_Carson]

True, this is is the teaching of the Catholic Church. However, there is no basis in Scripture for papal infallibility.

Of course there is.

Jesus was thoroughly familiar with the Old Testament scriptures, and He intentionally referenced the passage from Isaiah 22:20-22 when He appointed Peter as His royal steward in Matthew 16:18-19. Peter received authority from Jesus to speak in His name, and to do so faithfully, Peter must not teach error. Therefore, Peter (and his successors who are the leaders of Jesus’ Church) are protected by God from ever teaching error in matters of faith and morals. This is called “infallibility”.

Jesus reveals the infallible nature of the Church when he declares, “whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." What does this curious passage mean? There are two possible interpretations.

First, if God reciprocates the binding and loosing of Church on earth with an identical binding or loosing in heaven, then the binding and loosing done on earth must of necessity be free from all error. If this were not so, God would have put Himself in the impossible situation of having to affirm that which is not true whenever the Church taught error.

A second interpretation would be that the authority of the church is to carry out the will and decisions of God upon earth as they have been established in heaven. This is in perfect accord with the way Jesus instructed us to pray: “Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven” (Matthew 6:10).

Thus, the Church must either be prevented from teaching error in order that God may ratify its decisions in heaven or the Church must be proclaiming here below those things that are already true in heaven. Either way, the decisions and actions of the Church can be seen to be infallible with regard to matters of faith and morals. Anything less would make Jesus a liar for He also declared, “But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth” (John 16:13) and “I am with you always till the end of the world.” (Matthew 28:20)