The Pope is NOT God!

[Genesis315]

The idea that papal rulings on issues of doctrine were binding, “irreformable,” or “inviolable” or that no one can depart from them in good faith is something that goes all the way back. Implicit in this reality is the truth of infallibility, in light of the general infallibility and indefectability of the universal Church.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Yes it does.

The First Vatican Council is concerned primarily with the errors of Liberalism/Rationalism/Naturalism which sought to place supernatural truths, which we receive with faith, on the level of natural truths, which we receive through reason. Thus, the Liberals of the time taught that the teachings of the Church were simply natural truths which man could judge with his reason and decide whether or not they were true.

So the Council first taught about what revelation is, what faith is, and the relationship between faith and reason. It’s next task was to explain how the truth is handed down without error–due to the Franco Prussian war it was cut short and they only definied the Pope’s role (the Second Vatican Council would finish explaining this).

The point of the definition of papal infallibility was to fight the error that the judgments of the Pope were on the level of human opinion, which people could rationally disagree with in good conscience. The Council, however, condemned this idea, by definitively asserting the dogma of papal infallibility, that is, that the judgments of the Pope are confirmations of the revelation and/or law of God, and not human opinion.

Your point is the same atheists and JWs try to make concerning the Church waiting 300 years to assert that Jesus is God…

The only problem: we do not have anyone in the 300 years who is recognizably Orthodox who denied Christ’s divinity, and we have quite a few who weren’t who proclaimed His divinity (one reason the JW have backtracked from extensive quotation of Tertullian). We do have a number of Latins denying papal infallibility: Fr. Ambrose has posted the Latin clergy in the 1820s during hearings in Britain who denied infallibility, and he also has pointed to, e.g. the Anglo-Irish catechism of 1870 (!) which calls it a Protestant lie, or some such thing.

We not even getting into the evidence of history denying it, e.g. the Universal rebuking of Pope Victor, the Fifth Council’s condemnation of Pope Honorius as a heretic, Pope Zosimus’ exoneration of Pelagius, etc.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

There were already infallible decrees before Vat. I. Vatican I just formalized papal infallibility. the immaculate conception (1854) was elevated to a dogma of the faith before the first sessions of the vatican council (1869).

Yes, that seems to be the only one every Latin can agree that they believe was infallible. Going further back gets murkier.

 

[Steve40]

Thank God the Pope isn’t God! He does have the guidence of the Holy Spirit similar to how a Baptised and married father has guidence to help his children.

Christ Said He would never leave us. In the Eucharist He never has and through the guidence of the Holy Spirit to the Pope He also but in a lesser way, has not left us.

 

[Odell]

He’s not! :hypno:
Man im lost.
What am I to do?

 

[WSD]

And does it also make perfect sense that He waited 1800 years to state the above?

Was that what Peter was doing in Galatians 2.

Galations 2 talks about Peters personal behavior, were he was not living up to the Council of Jerusalem. The Council was moved to support admitting Jews and NonJews to the Church by Peters revelation, and now he was failing to support his own Statement of Faith and morals.
Galatians is importaint in that it shows the Popes are human in their personal life, and still express the will of God in their official capacity.
If you look at the history of Church councils, they set out to define doctrine when dispute over doctrine has created confusion over the truth of the Faith In one sence it took 1800 years for the people of God to ask
Peace