CARose:
EA Man,
I must admit, I don’t blame you for not fully getting the concept of Infallibiliy, it’s a bit tough and knowing which teachings are Infallible and which are merely his opinion can be tough to get to. I still can’t say with certaintude that I know the parameters, perhaps because I don’t always take posts that say “here’s what it takes and it’s only happened twice…” as definitive proof that that’s the correct parameters. I’ll need to see a source document and even then, I’m a bit fuzzy on it.
But this much I do know, that there are certain documents released by the Pope that have an incredible amount of wisdom attached. This pieces have been well researched and are scripturally based works that help us to apply Christ’s teachings to todays world. This helps me immensely, as there is a limit to what any one of us can do in terms of research and the Pope is typically extremely learned in scripture and the history of the Church.
CARose
My contention is not that the office of the pope always issues error or that many if not most of the popes have been men of God.
My contention is twofold; the first is that infallibility cannot be reasonably maintained from a Biblical or historical standpoint. All of the conditions attached to it from Vatican I and it’s apologists have the flavor of after the fact tinkering. For example, the assertion or fact that Honorius I (yes, again), didn’t use the words “ex cathedra”, which were defined as a condition in 1870 seems little more than apologetic sleight of hand.
Honorius wrote to Sergius
as the bishop of Rome, not as a private theologian. He responded
as the bishop of Rome to an official inquiry to the See of Rome regarding a matter of
faith and morals. He wrote to a fellow bishop of the church, and in speaking of the very issue of whether Christ had one will or two, he wrote, e}nqevlhmaoJmologou
mentouKurivou jIhsou Cristou
.Make sure you note the use of the plural, “we confess.” Honorius did not say, “Oh, I think maybe it’s like this.” He employed the very same plural that Roman bishops use today to refer to their representation of the church as a whole. (from James White)
This is clearly error - the teaching (through affirmation) of error.
You can surround this with all of the caveats that you want to attempt to disguise the fact of error being taught by the occupant of Peter’s Chair. In point of fact, it cam from Peter’s Chair. Furthermore Honorius didn’t use the phrase “ex cathedra” because prior to the Eighteenth or Nineteenth century No One used that phrase; it is an invention.
The second contention is that a similar device is used for apostolic succession. This thread contains numerous statements that succession doesn’t flow exclusively through the papacy. This is another convenient dodge. Under this justification no amount of error or moral failing in the papacy or other offices of the church ever undermines the claim of succession. The situation in my own arch-diocese of Boston is a perfect example. The claim of succession in my mind is useless if it offers no better use in practical terms than no claim of succession (i.e. in Protestanism). In other words, if I can find that the behavior and
teachings of priests, bishops, cardinals, and yes even of the pope is no better or worse, than those outside the church, then of what use is this doctrine?
By their
fruits you shall know them. Matthew 7:16
What is the outward manifestation of their teaching?
Does their walk match their talk?
Mark 9:38-41
“Teacher,” said John, “we saw a man driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us.”
“Do not stop him,” Jesus said. “No one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, for whoever is not against us is for us. I tell you the truth, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to Christ will certainly not lose his reward.”
This wasn’t very polite or respectful now, was it?
