The infallable pope

[Peter_J]

P.S.

I think they are hiding the fact that there are some infallible proclamations which contradict others.

Are you asking whether there was ever a situation where a proclamation was thought to be infallible, and turned out not to be?

(Of course, I kind of depends on whom you ask. Obviously, a typical Protestant or Orthodox will tell you that Catholics believe wrongly that the Immaculate Conception was infallibly proclaimed. I, on the other hand, will tell you that Catholics believe rightly that the Immaculate Conception was infallibly proclaimed.

 

[rinnie]

While this is true, Christ gave no instructions as to who should carry on the Church after Peter established it. There is also no mention of anyone’s infallibility. You cannot say that these verses commanded the papacy as we know it, or any papacy at all, for that matter.

Then why did he say ALL my Father has given me I now give to you. Now he either gave Peter the Power or he didnt. What makes the Power Jesus gave to Peter and the Apostles any different than the Power he had himself. How can this be possible. Where did he say the Power ends with you Peter? Or did Peter have Just what Christ said the same Power to pass on? He either had the Power or he didnt.

 

[Good_Fella]

Where in the bible does it mention the “election” of a pope and his “infallibilty”?

He said to them, " But who do you say that I am “? Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” Jesus said to him in reply,” Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. ."
Matthew 16, 15-19

Pope John XXlll said, “I never speak infallibly.” In other words, it is the Holy Spirit who speaks infallibly through the Vicar of Christ on earth. The pope himself is never infallible, but he is graced with the charism of infallibilty, as Peter was when he made his profession of faith by the grace of God. It was Peter who was the first among the apostles to confess the divinity of Christ, indicating the traditional belief of Matthew’s church that Peter held a postion of primacy among the apostles. Jesus did tell Peter that he had been singularly blessed apart from the rest of the apostles by having received this special divine revelation from God. And so Jesus changed Simon’s name to Peter, meaning “the rock”, thereby building the Church only on him with the other apostles as the foundation and Jesus as the head. The keys which Peter received stand for his authority as Vicar over the Church and the facilitation of dynastic succession to his authority.

Peter’s declaration of faith is the Church’s first recorded instance of an infallible pronouncement made by a Vicar of Christ. And it consists of the most essential teaching at the heart of the Christian faith: the divinity of Christ. Our first Pope did not merely pronounce his definition by having arrived at a private rational judgment. The Holy Spirit spoke through him for the benefit of all believers in a unity of faith. Peter affirmed a divine truth by the grace of God on which the Church would be built and established on a single truth.

In Aramaic ‘kepha’ literally means “rock”. Jesus gave Peter this appellation to signify his primary status among the apostles. In Scripture we find that when God changes the name of someone, it serves to designate him in a unique position with God: Abram to Abraham (Gen 17:5); Jacob to Israel (Gen 32:28); Eliakim to Jehoiakim (2 Kings 23:34); Saul to Paul (Acts 9:4). Peter was privileged to become Christ’s representative on earth, a role prefigured by that of the king’s prime minister in the Davidic kingdom, who was granted the royal authority to make decisions on behalf of the king for the people of Israel (Isaiah 22:22; Job 12:14). The Vicar of Christ makes decisions on behalf of Christ the King for the Church, prefigured by Israel. Jesus did pray exclusively for Peter so that his faith would not fail, and our Lord charged Kepha to strengthen and confirm his brethren in the faith so that the gates of hell should not prevail.

“Simon, Simon, Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat, but I have prayed that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned your back, you must strengthen your brothers.”
Luke 22, 31-32

Jesus established his “One” Church so that the true word of God would pass from our Lord to his apostles and through them to their successors until the end of this age by the power of the Holy Spirit. This transference of divine authority adequately describes the facilitation of the charism of infallibilty. If we search the New Testament we will find occasions when the apostles appointed their own successors by the laying on of hands, a ritual that signifies and marks the transmission of this vital charism for the divine mandate of the teaching office of the Church. We must never underestimate the value of God’s single truth made manifest in divine revelation. Apostolic succession, notably the succession of the primacy of Peter, has lasted ever since the birth of the Catholic Church at Pentecost so that the one true faith should be confirmed.

Peter was the only apostle who in Rome suffered martyrdom by crucifixion in emulation of our Lord. I believe this is Christ’s way of assuring us that he had in fact appointed Peter to be his Vicar on earth.

“The Church of God which sojourns at Rome to the Church of God which sojourns at Corinth…if any disobey the words spoken by him (Jesus Christ) through us (the Bishop of Rome), let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger.”
Clement of Rome, Pope, 1st Epistle to the Corinthians [c.A.D. 96]

PAX :harp:

 

[ron77nyc]

Um, no, there are not.

There are no ‘infallible proclamations’ that contradict other infallible proclamations.

But since you’re claiming there are. . .show them. The burden of proof is on you since you made the claim.

This is from www.catholicconcerns.com

In 1864, Pope Pius IX “infallibly” declared that the idea that people have a right to freedom of conscience and freedom of worship is “insanity,” “evil,” “depraved,” and “reprobate”. He also declared that non-Catholics who live in Catholic countries should not be allowed to publicly practice their religion. In 1888, Pope Leo XIII “infallibly” declared that freedom of thought and freedom of worship are wrong. These encyclicals are available on-line. [Note 4 gives addresses for them.]

The Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) produced a document entitled “Declaration on Religious Liberty” which states that all people have a right to freedom of religion. [Note 5]

Now I certainly agree with the idea of freedom of religion. However, it totally contradicts the “infallible” declarations of Popes Pius IX and Leo XIII. It also contradicts the anathemas of the Council of Trent, the killing of “heretics,” the Inquisition, the burning of people who translated the Bible into the language of the common people, and the persecution of Protestants.

Freedom of religion also contradicts modern Canon Law (1988). Canon 1366 says that parents are to be punished with “a just penalty” if they allow their children to “be baptized or educated in a non-Catholic religion”. The reference to baptism shows that this refers to Christian religions which are not Roman Catholic. [Note 6] (During the Inquisition, “a just penalty” included things like torture and being burned at the stake. The Inquisition was based on Canon Law.) (See the article “Hunting ‘Heretics’”.)

1. Pope Pius IX, “Quanta Cura” (“Condemning Current Errors”), December 8, 1864. The “error” is given in Section 3, second paragraph. (Most numbered sections consist of only one paragraph. This section has two paragraphs.) The condemnation of all of the “errors” described in the encyclical is given in paragraph 6. [To read this online, search for “Pius IX” + “quanta cura”]
2. “Dignitatis Humanae” (“Declaration on Religious Liberty”) in Austin Flannery (editor), “Vatican Council II, The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents,” New Revised Edition, Volume 1 (Northport, New York: Costello Publishing Company, 1975, 1996), pages 799-812.

From: www.allaboutreligion.org

Gregory I (590) declared that anyone who believed it was not necessary to take both the bread and wine at Mass was to be excommunicated; Innocent III (1215) stated that anyone who believed it was necessary was to be excommunicated. Paschal II (1099-1118) and Eugene III (1145-1153) authorized dueling; Julius II (1503-1513) and Pius VII (1800-1823) forbade it. Hadrian II (867-872) declared civil marriages to be valid; Pius VII condemned them. Sixtus V (1585-1590) published an edition of the Bible and recommended it to be read; Pius VII condemned the reading of it, claiming the edition to be full of errors.

 

[Good_Fella]

This is from www.catholicconcerns.com

In 1864, Pope Pius IX “infallibly” declared that the idea that people have a right to freedom of conscience and freedom of worship is “insanity,” “evil,” “depraved,” and “reprobate”. He also declared that non-Catholics who live in Catholic countries should not be allowed to publicly practice their religion. In 1888, Pope Leo XIII “infallibly” declared that freedom of thought and freedom of worship are wrong. These encyclicals are available on-line. [Note 4 gives addresses for them.]

The Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) produced a document entitled “Declaration on Religious Liberty” which states that all people have a right to freedom of religion. [Note 5]

Now I certainly agree with the idea of freedom of religion. However, it totally contradicts the “infallible” declarations of Popes Pius IX and Leo XIII. It also contradicts the anathemas of the Council of Trent, the killing of “heretics,” the Inquisition, the burning of people who translated the Bible into the language of the common people, and the persecution of Protestants.

Freedom of religion also contradicts modern Canon Law (1988). Canon 1366 says that parents are to be punished with “a just penalty” if they allow their children to “be baptized or educated in a non-Catholic religion”. The reference to baptism shows that this refers to Christian religions which are not Roman Catholic. [Note 6] (During the Inquisition, “a just penalty” included things like torture and being burned at the stake. The Inquisition was based on Canon Law.) (See the article “Hunting ‘Heretics’”.)

1. Pope Pius IX, “Quanta Cura” (“Condemning Current Errors”), December 8, 1864. The “error” is given in Section 3, second paragraph. (Most numbered sections consist of only one paragraph. This section has two paragraphs.) The condemnation of all of the “errors” described in the encyclical is given in paragraph 6. [To read this online, search for “Pius IX” + “quanta cura”]
2. “Dignitatis Humanae” (“Declaration on Religious Liberty”) in Austin Flannery (editor), “Vatican Council II, The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents,” New Revised Edition, Volume 1 (Northport, New York: Costello Publishing Company, 1975, 1996), pages 799-812.

From: www.allaboutreligion.org

Gregory I (590) declared that anyone who believed it was not necessary to take both the bread and wine at Mass was to be excommunicated; Innocent III (1215) stated that anyone who believed it was necessary was to be excommunicated. Paschal II (1099-1118) and Eugene III (1145-1153) authorized dueling; Julius II (1503-1513) and Pius VII (1800-1823) forbade it. Hadrian II (867-872) declared civil marriages to be valid; Pius VII condemned them. Sixtus V (1585-1590) published an edition of the Bible and recommended it to be read; Pius VII condemned the reading of it, claiming the edition to be full of errors.

Your web site sources are anti-Catholic, or biased, and thus inaccurate and misleading. May I suggest you do your own objective research from a neutral standpoint by studying all of the above for yourself.

 

[Peter_J]

This is from www.catholicconcerns.com

In 1864, Pope Pius IX “infallibly” declared that the idea that people have a right to freedom of conscience and freedom of worship is “insanity,” “evil,” “depraved,” and “reprobate”. He also declared that non-Catholics who live in Catholic countries should not be allowed to publicly practice their religion. In 1888, Pope Leo XIII “infallibly” declared that freedom of thought and freedom of worship are wrong. These encyclicals are available on-line. [Note 4 gives addresses for them.]

The Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) produced a document entitled “Declaration on Religious Liberty” which states that all people have a right to freedom of religion. [Note 5]

Now I certainly agree with the idea of freedom of religion. However, it totally contradicts the “infallible” declarations of Popes Pius IX and Leo XIII. It also contradicts the anathemas of the Council of Trent, the killing of “heretics,” the Inquisition, the burning of people who translated the Bible into the language of the common people, and the persecution of Protestants.

Freedom of religion also contradicts modern Canon Law (1988). Canon 1366 says that parents are to be punished with “a just penalty” if they allow their children to “be baptized or educated in a non-Catholic religion”. The reference to baptism shows that this refers to Christian religions which are not Roman Catholic. [Note 6] (During the Inquisition, “a just penalty” included things like torture and being burned at the stake. The Inquisition was based on Canon Law.) (See the article “Hunting ‘Heretics’”.)

1. Pope Pius IX, “Quanta Cura” (“Condemning Current Errors”), December 8, 1864. The “error” is given in Section 3, second paragraph. (Most numbered sections consist of only one paragraph. This section has two paragraphs.) The condemnation of all of the “errors” described in the encyclical is given in paragraph 6. [To read this online, search for “Pius IX” + “quanta cura”]
2. “Dignitatis Humanae” (“Declaration on Religious Liberty”) in Austin Flannery (editor), “Vatican Council II, The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents,” New Revised Edition, Volume 1 (Northport, New York: Costello Publishing Company, 1975, 1996), pages 799-812.

From: www.allaboutreligion.org

Gregory I (590) declared that anyone who believed it was not necessary to take both the bread and wine at Mass was to be excommunicated; Innocent III (1215) stated that anyone who believed it was necessary was to be excommunicated. Paschal II (1099-1118) and Eugene III (1145-1153) authorized dueling; Julius II (1503-1513) and Pius VII (1800-1823) forbade it. Hadrian II (867-872) declared civil marriages to be valid; Pius VII condemned them. Sixtus V (1585-1590) published an edition of the Bible and recommended it to be read; Pius VII condemned the reading of it, claiming the edition to be full of errors.

You keep quoting those popes. I do not think that they prove what you think they prove.

Okay, but seriously, it’ll take me a little time to do justice to your post. (Which is very impressive by the way. Important points to ponder, with regard to our understanding/application of the infallibility of the Church. Speaking of which, you should take a look at this quote if you haven’t already seen it.)

 

[Protestant101]

Especially when (and it’s going to come sooner than you think) our separated brethren return to Catholicism.

This part of your statement is quite true; but you have left some important details out - one of which would tell people that not all will make this move. I would also add that when it happens; it will be sudden, perhaps indicating that such a move may not infact be directed by God.

If the Pope’s doctrinal “explanations” were so infallible; the “unity” that the Catholic Church so desires would be more clearly seen by all for what it really is - it is nothing short of soliciting submission to the Pope.

 

[Protestant101]

Peter was the only apostle who in Rome suffered martyrdom by crucifixion in emulation of our Lord. I believe this is Christ’s way of assuring us that he had in fact appointed Peter to be his Vicar on earth.

Back in those days; many were crucified for believeing in Jesus; this certainly was not unique to Peter; in fact Peter was crucified upside down; showing that there is a difference between looking to man for salvation and looking to Jesus as Savior. This is poor “evidence” to show Peter’s “status” in the Church.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Protestant, that is very interesting that you speak of Peter’s crucifixion being ‘upside down’.

You do realize, of course, that this event is not mentioned in Scripture.

It is part of the Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church. Apparently, you ‘accept’ it as truth enough to try to use it ‘against’ the idea of Peter being ‘good enough’ to be a Pope.

Why do you accept the tradition of Peter’s crucifixion but you don’t accept the other traditions? How do you know which ones to ‘take’ and NOT to take?

 

[Peter_J]

Peter was the only apostle who in Rome suffered martyrdom by crucifixion in emulation of our Lord. I believe this is Christ’s way of assuring us that he had in fact appointed Peter to be his Vicar on earth.

I know, personally, I make it a general practice to take things I read on the internet with a grain of salt.

You’re right in saying that “this certainly was not unique to Peter”. In fact, wasn’t St. Andrew crucified on an X-shaped cross?

 

[TriuneUnity]

I know, personally, I make it a general practice to take things I read on the internet with a grain of salt.

You’re right in saying that “this certainly was not unique to Peter”. In fact, wasn’t St. Andrew crucified on an X-shaped cross?

Yeah…hence the flag of Scotland.

 

[Protestant101]

Protestant, that is very interesting that you speak of Peter’s crucifixion being ‘upside down’.

You do realize, of course, that this event is not mentioned in Scripture.

It is part of the Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church. Apparently, you ‘accept’ it as truth enough to try to use it ‘against’ the idea of Peter being ‘good enough’ to be a Pope.

Why do you accept the tradition of Peter’s crucifixion but you don’t accept the other traditions? How do you know which ones to ‘take’ and NOT to take?

I anticipated that my comment would get some notice; it is also interesting to note that I used your own “language” (ie Tradtion) to show the holes in this dogma about Peter being crucified, and the significance of this event to God’s people. It is so obvious to even casual observation that the event of Peter being crucified had nothing to do with his appointed “status” within the Body of Christ. The Bible simply gives us no information to indicate that what was said here about that is true, not according to any stretch of the imagination.

 

[Peter_J]

I anticipated that my comment would get some notice; it is also interesting to note that I used your own “language” (ie Tradtion) to show the holes in this dogma about Peter being crucified, and the significance of this event to God’s people. It is so obvious to even casual observation that the event of Peter being crucified had nothing to do with his appointed “status” within the Body of Christ. The Bible simply gives us no information to indicate that what was said here about that is true, not according to any stretch of the imagination.

There is no such dogma.

 

[ron77nyc]

Your web site sources are anti-Catholic, or biased, and thus inaccurate and misleading. May I suggest you do your own objective research from a neutral standpoint by studying all of the above for yourself.

I’ve been trying for a couple of weeks on this forum and one other catholic forum and catholic.com & ewtn.com to get a vatican approved list of infallible statements but I am told it doesn’t exist. The one I’m really concerned with is the one about when the Pope said there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. I remember that one when I was in Catholic school. I have friends and family members who are Protestant. Are they going to hell? Vatican II says no. There is the contradiction. Did it ever occur to you that taking in only Catholic information is also biased?

 

[ron77nyc]

Then why did he say ALL my Father has given me I now give to you. Now he either gave Peter the Power or he didnt. What makes the Power Jesus gave to Peter and the Apostles any different than the Power he had himself. How can this be possible. Where did he say the Power ends with you Peter? Or did Peter have Just what Christ said the same Power to pass on? He either had the Power or he didnt.

Jesus did miracles. The apostles had the same power to heal and do miracles. Peter walked on water. I know they are called by God for that very serious leadership role but I don’t see any Popes doing that kind of stuff.

 

[elts1956]

Um, no, there are not.

There are no ‘infallible proclamations’ that contradict other infallible proclamations.

But since you’re claiming there are. . .show them. The burden of proof is on you since you made the claim.

S/He said s/he “thinks” this. An emotional knee jerk reaction having no proof. I have them often

 

[elts1956]

This part of your statement is quite true; but you have left some important details out - one of which would tell people that not all will make this move. I would also add that when it happens; it will be sudden, perhaps indicating that such a move may not infact be directed by God.

If the Pope’s doctrinal “explanations” were so infallible; the “unity” that the Catholic Church so desires would be more clearly seen by all for what it really is - it is nothing short of soliciting submission to the Pope.

Most non Catholics unfortunately usually leave out the correct equation when talking about “submission to the Pope”. You see, it goes like this. Christ’s teachings = Christ’s teachings. The Pope is merely the conductor of these teachings. So submission to the Pope? NO. Submission to Christ, YES.

 

[ron77nyc]

I’m not putting God to the test. I’m putting man to the test. Jesus said His followers would do even more that He did. He said all thing are possible to those who believe. What are we doing wrong?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I hope somebody can express this more eloquently than I can.

I think you’re totally wrong to equate the ‘miracles’ done by Jesus and the apostles into the criteria by which we can judge how ‘Christian’ a person is. . .“Good” if he can do miracles, “No good” if he can’t.

Miracles come from God. God does not ‘have to’ give people power to perform miracles. Further, miracles don’t have to involve ‘physical healing’. Or ‘superpowers’. And God doesn’t need to do the ‘same thing’ for every age. In an age like ours in which people (for the most part) are not facing the types of diseases and ills that faced people in 1st century AD life, the type of ‘physical’ miracles that Jesus and the apostles did might not be needed. When was the last time you met a leper? Further, if “raising from the dead” was so important that St. Peter could do it the way you imply, practically on demand, why didn’t St. Peter raise St. James from the dead when St. James was martyred? Why didn’t St. John raise St. Peter and St. Paul? Surely he COULD have–as a good Christian and apostle he must have been a MIGHTY miracle worker. Why didn’t he? See the errors you can fall into when you take one aspect of apostolic work and attempt to make it into the ‘most important’ aspect?

Also, in 1st century AD, to ‘raise a person from the dead’ was indeed a miracle. Today it may be–but it may also equally be a result of the non-miraculous use of scientific equipment (defibrillators et. al) or the results of human procedures such as the Heimlich maneuver or CPR. How do you know that people aren’t performing equally amazing miracles in having come up with the technology that helps people to survive who would not have done so without that technology? How do you know that people aren’t performing equally amazing miracles in Internet ‘conversations’ and in establishing places like this website in which people are given the treasures of the Faith, the knowledge of Christ and His salvific actions, such that these people are having their souls ‘saved’? Isn’t that miraculous?

Finally, where do you get the idea that Jesus’ telling us that we would do ‘greater work than His’ met ONLY doing physical miracles? Do you think He thought that His physical miracles in raising the dead were the most important part of His work on earth?

 

[Protestant101]

There is no such dogma.

Oh, OK! Doctrine, belief, dogma, whatever you want to call it is fine; but it was stated above a few posts ago by a Catholic forum member as fact that because Peter was crucified, that this somehow indicates Peter’s status within the Body of Christ, such as the Catholic dogma of “in Christ’s stead.” The point was that Peter was not special in any way because of the fact that he was crucified. Many others also were crucified. Showing that Peter was the same as every other human being and that the Pope was never appointed as the world-wide Church leader. He is only the leader of the Roman Catholic Church, and he is far from “infallible” when it comes to “doctrine.” The claims he makes about himself, and that Roman Catholics make about him prove it.