The infallable pope

  • Thread starter Thread starter Irene72
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
This disturbs me and I don’t know why it’s not disturbing to everyone because everyone is supposed to accept this as a foundation of faith. This is another one of those confusing things people talk about with great conviction but no one is really sure of what it encompasses. Some people say only 2 while others say about 300. I found a website that gives a long list but it’s not an official Catholic document so no one can say if it is approved of by the Church.
People say 2 or 300 depending on what they are trying to support. For example, the Extraordinary Magisterium – a personal promulgation of dogma by a pope declaring that what is being promulgated is infallible dogma – has happened only twice. Nevertheless, the promulgations of ecumenical councils and the consistent teaching of the Church is also infallible: the resurrection is not negotiable, nor is it fallible just because it was not proclaimed by a pope speaking ex cathedra.
 
People say 2 or 300 depending on what they are trying to support. For example, the Extraordinary Magisterium – a personal promulgation of dogma by a pope declaring that what is being promulgated is infallible dogma – has happened only twice. Nevertheless, the promulgations of ecumenical councils and the consistent teaching of the Church is also infallible: the resurrection is not negotiable, nor is it fallible just because it was not proclaimed by a pope speaking ex cathedra.
Are Catholics required to know all the above in order to know what to believe and what not to believe?
 
Are Catholics required to know all the above in order to know what to believe and what not to believe?
They would likely know many of them – thinks like the real presence, baptismal regeneration, the power of the Keys. As for the rest, you don’t need them in the front of your brain in order to function as a Christian in daily life. Think of them as the 300 things the Church declares as part of the “certain and catholic faith” that must be accepted de fide by Catholics – whether each particular individual Catholic happens to know them all or not. The Church needs to know them all. We pew people need to know the essentials of living the Christian life.

It is quite possible to live a fully Christian life without being able to give dogmatic defintions of the more deeply imbedded points of the faith. People who are mentally impaired can be Christian and Catholic without knowing or understanding every specific teaching.

If you have faith in Christ and faith in His Church, then you can live with assurance that if you ever need to know one of the 300 points that Catholics accept de fide, then you will take care of that at the time.
 
This disturbs me and I don’t know why it’s not disturbing to everyone because everyone is supposed to accept this as a foundation of faith. This is another one of those confusing things people talk about with great conviction but no one is really sure of what it encompasses. Some people say only 2 while others say about 300. I found a website that gives a long list but it’s not an official Catholic document so no one can say if it is approved of by the Church.
Mostly what I want to say in response, I already said in the Cardinal Newman vindicated? thread, so I’ll just let you read it there if you want to.

I’ll just add that I, too, was a bit shocked when I first learned that what I’d been hearing for years and years (namely “There’ve been two and only two ex cathedra statements”) was not, in fact, agreed upon by all Catholics.
 
Mostly what I want to say in response, I already said in the Cardinal Newman vindicated? thread, so I’ll just let you read it there if you want to.

I’ll just add that I, too, was a bit shocked when I first learned that what I’d been hearing for years and years (namely “There’ve been two and only two ex cathedra statements”) was not, in fact, agreed upon by all Catholics.
Hi. I wish there was a document “somewhere” that did give a definitive list of infallible documents/dogmas. So far, I don’t think a question about any of them we don’t know about has come up, but it would sure help to have a resource. 😉
 
Hello,

ok, I have a question, we know all Prophets, Messengers of God were sinless, and we also know ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE, that yall claim there will never be another after Jesus (on him peace), so where in the world are you claiming that the Pope is sinless/infallable??? A fabrication from the church(something which Jesus himself never stepped into to? or do yall follow yall’s scripture? Just curious.

Americanrevert
 
Hi American Revert.

We don’t say that all prophets from God were sinless.
We don’t say the Pope is sinless.

We don’t say that ‘generally’ the Pope is infallible.
For this last remark the Church says the Pope is infallible only in certain circumstances - on faith and morals, and only speaking ex cathedra.
 
**Hello,

Really? I was taught in Christianity that all were sinless. (Protestant~First Baptist) how come yall say otherwise? Where is your proof?

Why rely so much on the church when it doesn’t stipulate from the Bible these kind of remarks??

Just curious and thank you for your reply

Americanrevert**
 
The start of my proof is that we have no history - church, biblical or otherwise that claims all prophets/messengers of God were sinless.

In fact the Church expressly says that every human except a handful - Adam, Eve, Mary and of course Jesus were born with original sin.

In fact lots of prophets / messengers of God were biblically in sin.

King David had a soldier killed so he could marry his wife.
Moses killed an Egyptian man before fleeing to the desert.
St Paul killed many Christians before becoming one himself.
Aaron (Moses’ brother) created a golden idol to worship instead of God, before he repented and took Moses place when Moses died.

I’m sure there are many other examples.

From memory, the Koran also suggests Muhammad claimed to have sinned and needed forgiveness.

On the second question, Catholics see the Church as being instigated from the time of the apostles, before the New Testament writings were written. We see the church as a continuation of the Jewish Old Covenant.

The writings of the New Testament do speak of a church although a lot of the writings were describing the life of Jesus which of course were largely before the Church was instigated and given authority by Jesus. A lot of the writings are also about the preaching of the gospel, as the church was being created and expanding and needing bishops, doctrine etc IMHO.
 
Hello Abucs and thank you for your reply.
From memory, the Koran also suggests Muhammad claimed to have sinned and needed forgiveness
.

Can you please provide me with this accusation? 🙂

If there is no authentic history, the question is that if there is no history to state that they were not sinless, then why claim they were not?

Also, the church…(always the church) am interested in the Bible’s teachings, not the church’s…(the true message of Jesus), the teachings of the church…where do they get off saying things without Jesus’ authentication?

Thank you for your reply to my questions. But one other question, if Jesus didn’t make the church and was formed later, then why go to all the trouble to do and worship in something that Jesus never said or did?

Thank you

Americanrevert
 
Hello Abucs and thank you for your reply.

Can you please provide me with this accusation? 🙂

If there is no authentic history, the question is that if there is no history to state that they were not sinless, then why claim they were not?

Also, the church…(always the church) am interested in the Bible’s teachings, not the church’s…(the true message of Jesus), the teachings of the church…where do they get off saying things without Jesus’ authentication?

Thank you for your reply to my questions. But one other question, if Jesus didn’t make the church and was formed later, then why go to all the trouble to do and worship in something that Jesus never said or did?

Thank you

Americanrevert
Hi Revert. We have discussed infallibility of the Pope, why we follow what the Pope says in Faith and Morals, ie dogmatic revelations etc. and not to brush you off, first try reading the posts on this thread from the beginning. If you have any questions, or want to refer to a post, please let us know and we will be glad to go more into depth with it /them with you. By the way, the Catholic Church didn’t “pop” up in later centuries after Christ. We Catholics follow the one Church formed by Christ and passed directly into the keeping of His Disciples and their anointed ones from the time of Christ’s death, in particular after Pentecost, then til now and into the future. We also have Christ’s authentication. We don’t believe the prophets to be sinless because, as I understand it, neither Christ, the “Church” nor the Bible has said so.
 
Hi Americanrevert,
I agree with elts1956. For the other question, some claims of Muhammads sins (like all other prophets) are discussed below.
Note I have lifted the following from various sites (some anti-Islamic) after a quick google, but they seem to quote verses. I haven’t got a copy of the Koran with me (I’m at work at the moment).
………………………
The Qur’an admits that the sins of Muhammad were many and that they weighed heavily on him. Sura 94:1-3 speaks of this when it says: “Have We not expanded thee thy breast? And removed from thee they burden, the which did gall thy back?” These verses indicate that Allah had to remove Muhammad’s burdens (sin) from his back. Muslims contend that these sins were committed before he became a prophet (before 610). We need only refer to Sura 48:2 which says in reference to Muhammad, “Allah may forgive thee thy faults of the past and those to follow…” indicating that even after the Sura was delivered Allah expected him to sin.
In Suras 40:55 and Sura 47:19 we find written, “…and ask forgiveness for thy fault…” This seems straightforward, until you read Yusuf Ali’s note at the bottom (4428), which explains that due to the prophet’s responsibilities he asks forgiveness in a representative capacity.

Q 47:19 has Allah telling Muhammad to repent for his sin. The Arabic is singular: You, Muhammad, repent for your OWN sins; it can NOT mean that he needs to somehow repent for his people’s sins. The Arabic grammar does not permit it.

40:55 Then have patience (O Muhammad). Lo! the promise of Allah is true. And ask forgiveness of thy sin [dh—n—b] and hymn the praise of thy Lord at fall of night and in the early hours.

The Arabic word dhanaba (verb form) come from the root dh—n—b and is defined below. This verse is unambiguous. Muhammad has sin.

47:19 So know (O Muhammad . . .) that . . . none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and ask forgiveness for your sin, [dh—n—b] and also for (the sin of) believing men and believing women. And Allah knows well your moving about, and your place of rest (in your homes). (Hilali and Khan)

The final example of Muhammad’s sin from the Koran comes from Sura 48, which was revealed during and after Muhammad’s Treaty of Hudaybiyah in AD 628. Some scholars see verses that describe Muhammad’s conquest of Mecca in AD 630. Before then, however, Muhammad signed the Treaty. He got a dream or a vision to take a pilgrimage to the Black Stone. But the Meccans understandably stopped him outside of their city. He had been harassing their caravans for six years, after all. After tense negotiations, Muhammad sues for peace, and the Treaty is the way towards that goal.
48:2 That Allah may forgive you your sins [dh—n—b] of the past and the future and complete His Favour on you, and guide you on the Straight Path . . . (Hilali and Khan)
More importantly, this verse was probably revealed in 628, barely four years before he died of a fever in AD 632. Does this mean that the messenger of Allah had sin before AD 628? This seems to be the case. To be forgiven of dh—n—b, one must have it first. So what does this say about his daily guidance for eighteen years, quite apart from his revelations, which traditions say came on him in AD 610?
How is dh—n—b defined? Is it only a small weakness? Merely a minor fault? A Muslim scholar defines it thus: “Crime; Fault; Offence; Sin; Any act having an evil result” (Omar). A western scholar defines it as “a crime, fault, sin” (Penrice).
Sometimes the lighter word, such as “fault,” is chosen as the translation in these three verses. However, other persons in the Quran had or committed dh—n—b. What were they like?
Sources:
  • Abdul Mannan Omar, Dictionary of the Holy Qur’an, Noor Foundation, 2004. Omar points out that he uses, among others, the world—class dictionary by Edward Lane, Arabic—English Lexicon.
  • John Penrice, A Dictionary and Glossary of the Koran, Dover, 1873, 2004.
    Others in the Quran who suffer from dh—n—b
    Other persons in the Quran had or committed dh—n—b. The key is to observe what they do to deserve this word and what happens to them afterwards. The following classes of people are taken from verses in the Quran listed in this Appendix, which supports this article.
    (1) People generally are blessed by Allah with rain, for example, but they sin, so they are destroyed.
    (2) Potiphar’s wife tried to seduce Joseph of the Bible.
    (3) Jacob’s sons doubt him and call him senile and erroneous.
    (4) Polytheists in Noah’s time refuse to listen to the prophet, so they are destroyed.
    (5) The people of Thamud refuse to listen to a messenger of Allah and kill the she—camel, so they are destroyed.
    (6) The people of Ad refuse to listen to a messenger of Allah, so they are punished.
    (7) Moses committed the crime (dh—n—b) of murder before God encounters him in the burning bush.
    (8) Korah rebelled against Moses in the desert, so he and his clan are destroyed.
    (9) Pharaoh and the polytheistic ancient Egyptians refuse to obey Moses, so they are destroyed.
    (10) The jinn (genii or spirit beings) must heed the Quran, or they will be punished.
    (11) Believing Muslims have or practice dh—n—b.
    (12) Prophets of old confess their sins.
    (13) Jews and Christians refuse to listen to Muhammad.
    (14) Bedouins mix righteousness with evil, so they have dh—n—b.
    (15) If Muslims fight in the cause of Allah, then their dh—n—b will be forgiven.
    (16) Unbelievers burning in hell confess their dh—n—b.
    To sum up, those who possess or commit dh—n—b do the following: disbelieve, sexually seduce, rebel, murder, defy Allah, refuse his messengers, disobey clear warnings, doubt holy men, or mock sacred truths and messengers or patriarchs.
    The worst sin? Polytheists commit dh—n—b because they associate other deities with Allah, who punishes or destroys most of these people, forgiving on occasion.
    Therefore, how can anyone correctly say that dh—n—b means a minor “mistake” or “forgetfulness” or a small “fault” and still remain consistent with the Quran? Muhammad may not have committed every sin in the list, but surely his sin is not a small weakness.
 
The Hadith
This body of literature records the words and actions of Muhammad outside of the Quran. The most reliable collector and editor is Bukhari (d. 870). Five hadiths are sufficient to support and clarify the Quran on Muhammad’s sin nature, which all who are strictly humans have.
(1) The following hadith says that Muhammad sought Allah’s forgiveness seventy times a day. This does not make the Prophet seem secure in Allah.
Narrated Abu Huraira:
I heard Allah’s Apostle saying." By Allah! I ask for forgiveness from Allah and turn to Him in repentance more than seventy times a day." (Bukhari)
(2) Between Muhammad’s pronouncement that Allah is most great (Takbir) and the recitation of the Quran, he paused for a moment. He was asked what he said during the pause. Again he seeks from Allah forgiveness of his sins.
Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah’s Apostle used to keep silent between the Takbir and the recitation of Qur’an and that interval of silence used to be a short one. I said to the Prophet . . . “What do you say in the pause between Takbir and recitation?” The Prophet said, “I say . . . ‘O Allah! Set me apart from my sins (faults) [khati’a] as the East and West are set apart from each other and clean me from sins [khati’a] as a white garment is cleaned of dirt (after thorough washing). O Allah! Wash off my sins [khati’a] with water, snow and hail.’” (Bukhari)
For a definition of the word “khati’a,” go the Appendix.
(3) In this hadith the prophet appears nervous as he takes refuge in Allah from the punishment of the grave, from the persecution or trial of the Dajjal (the Islamic version of the Antichrist), and from his own sins.
Narrated 'Aisha:
(The wife of the Prophet) Allah’s Apostle used to invoke Allah in the prayer saying . . . O Allah, I seek refuge with You from the punishment of the grave and from the afflictions of Masih Ad—Dajjal and from the afflictions of life and death. O Allah, I seek refuge with You from the sins" . . . .'Aisha also narrated: “I heard Allah’s Apostle in his prayer seeking refuge with Allah from the afflictions of Ad—Dajjal.” (Bukhari; see a short parallel hadith on Muhammad’s fear of punishment in the grave here, and see a slightly longer one below (no. 376)
(4) This hadith says that Muhammad sought forgiveness from Allah for his mistakes and his “exceeding the limits” (i.e. his “great sins”).
Narrated Abu Musa Al—Ash’ari:
The Prophet used to invoke Allah, saying, “O Allah! Forgive my mistakes and my ignorance and my exceeding the limits (i.e., my great sins)” . . . . (Bukhari, vol. 8, no. 6398 in Invocations translated by Muhsin Khan, Darussalam, 1997; parenthetical insertions are original; online source, but it has only the transliterated Arabic)
(5) During his nighttime prayers, Muhammad sought Allah for forgiveness, repenting to him. Note how he asks for forgiveness for his past and future sins, echoing Sura 48:2. Ibn Abbas is Muhammad’s cousin and a highly respected transmitter of traditions.
Narrated Ibn Abbas [about Muhammad who is praying]:
. . . O Allah ! I surrender (my will) to You; I believe in You and depend on You and repent to You. . . . Please forgive me my previous and future sins; and whatever I concealed or revealed . . . . (Bukhari)
To sum up the last three sections, was Muhammad sinless? He is a mortal human through and through. He had the attribute dh—n—b and committed the reality behind this word. It goes far beyond simple errors, small mistakes, superficial weaknesses, minor faults, and brief lapses of memory. It may include these things (all humans do them), but it also has to signify sin, crime, offense, and any act having an evil result (all humans do this also, in one way or another). Moreover, Muhammad, who is allegedly the best of the best of all of God’s messengers, appears insecure and fearful of the punishment of the gravet. Punishment of the grave? He seems to fear Allah’s judgment on him for his sins.
In AD 628 (or thereabouts) Muhammad had his past and future sins forgiven according to Sura 48:2, but what about before this time? What was his daily life and guidance, apart from revelations that came on him, beginning in AD 610 (says tradition)? He was not sin—free.
 
Hi. I wish there was a document “somewhere” that did give a definitive list of infallible documents/dogmas. So far, I don’t think a question about any of them we don’t know about has come up, but it would sure help to have a resource. 😉
It seems as if Rome is not being transparent about this very important point that they teach is a foundation which the Catholic Church is built upon. "We need to know it but you dont" leaves me with some suspicions.
 
Hello Abucs and thank you for your reply.

Can you please provide me with this accusation? 🙂

If there is no authentic history, the question is that if there is no history to state that they were not sinless, then why claim they were not?

Also, the church…(always the church) am interested in the Bible’s teachings, not the church’s…(the true message of Jesus), the teachings of the church…where do they get off saying things without Jesus’ authentication?

Thank you for your reply to my questions. But one other question, if Jesus didn’t make the church and was formed later, then why go to all the trouble to do and worship in something that Jesus never said or did?

Thank you

Americanrevert
Here are some quotes from the bible that may answer your questions:
• John 14:6, "Jesus *said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me.”
• Acts 4:12, “And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men, by which we must be saved.”
• Romans 3:10-11, “as it is written,’ There is none righteous, not even one; There is none who understands, there is none who seeks for God…’”
• Romans 3:23, “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”
• Romans 6:23, “For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.”
• Romans 10:9-10, “if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved; 10 for with the heart man believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.”
 
Mostly what I want to say in response, I already said in the Cardinal Newman vindicated? thread, so I’ll just let you read it there if you want to.

I’ll just add that I, too, was a bit shocked when I first learned that what I’d been hearing for years and years (namely “There’ve been two and only two ex cathedra statements”) was not, in fact, agreed upon by all Catholics.
Hi,
I read the thread and it’s interesting. There are many more controversies connected with papal infallibility. I believe the Church is purposely being fuzzy on this one.
 
Hi. I wish there was a document “somewhere” that did give a definitive list of infallible documents/dogmas. So far, I don’t think a question about any of them we don’t know about has come up, but it would sure help to have a resource. 😉
Well let me ask you this: did the need for such a list arise only after 1870 – i.e. would you say that we need a list of ex cathedra statements because Vatican I declared that every ex cathedra statement is infallible?

Or would you say there was a need for such a list even before 1870? (If so, then doesn’t it seem strange that the Church got along with it for more than 1800 years?)
 
Well let me ask you this: did the need for such a list arise only after 1870 – i.e. would you say that we need a list of ex cathedra statements because Vatican I declared that every ex cathedra statement is infallible?

Or would you say there was a need for such a list even before 1870? (If so, then doesn’t it seem strange that the Church got along with it for more than 1800 years?)
I say why wasn’t there a list before and after 1870? How can people be expected to accept information that was never made known to them? Why say the Pope is infallible if we don’t know what he is infallible about?
 
Alright, but then do you say to my follow-up question?
If you’re saying the Church did without it then so it can do without it now then I agree. The Church does not need to publish a complete list of infallible statements for it to continue. Why then do we need to say the Pope is infallible? The Church existed also without that claim for over 1800 years. It seems like people use that statement “the Pope is infallible” when they need it but no one knows what it means.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top