The Pope's infalibility

[sambos671]

On another thread about priestly celebacy a statement came up that the Popes are perfect. Now my limited understanding about the doctrine of the Pope’s infalibility was not that the Pope was perfect but would never teach anything that would endager a christian’s salvation. Is this correct? History has shown that there were popes who were quite scandalous but I do not believe that any of them taught heresy. So pope’s don’t have to be perfect but they should keep in the teaching of the apostolic deposit. And not teach anything that would endanger a christians salvation is this correct?

 

[Della]

You are correct and more. The pope’s charism of infallibility only applies to his pronouncements/teaching in matters of faith and morals. His pick for a horse race, for instance, would be no better than yours or mine.

The person who stated that the pope is perfect is confusing impeccability with infallibility. The first means incapable of committing sin (which does not apply to the pope), and the second means incapable of error, which does apply to the pope, but in a limited way, as I cited above.

 

[Cathdefender]

You are correct and more. The pope’s charism of infallibility only applies to his pronouncements/teaching in matters of faith and morals. His pick for a horse race, for instance, would be no better than yours or mine.

The person who stated that the pope is perfect is confusing impeccability with infallibility. The first means incapable of committing sin (which does not apply to the pope), and the second means incapable of error, which does apply to the pope, but in a limited way, as I cited above.

It was I who said the pope is perfect. Not meaning perfect as a man, but perfect as in teaching infallibly the Word of God and the whole of it.

 

[SilentKnight]

It was I who said the pope is perfect. Not meaning perfect as a man, but perfect as in teaching infallibly the Word of God and the whole of it.

Not entirely true either.

Not to be “picky” but, popes are perfectly capable of misspeaking when it comes to the Word of God also, unconsciously and consciously. The only guarantee of infallibility they have is when they are defining doctrine (dogma).

SK

 

[teancum79]

So the Pope is just as human as the rest of us, but when they are teaching and they don’t suffer from Freudian slips etc. their teaching is perfect?

 

[Our_Refuge]

So the Pope is just as human as the rest of us, but when they are teaching and they don’t suffer from Freudian slips etc. their teaching is perfect?

No, the Pope can have Fruedian slips just like you or me. The Pope is guided by the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, when making an infallible definition on faith and morals.

John 14:15-17 “ “If you love me, and obey the commands I give you, I will ask the Father and he will give you another Paraclete-to be with you always:** the Spirit of truth **whom the world cannot accept, since it neither sees or recognizes him; but you can recognize him because he remains with you and will be within you”
John 14:26 “The Paraclete, the Holy Spirit whom the Father will send in my name, will instruct you in everything, and remind you of all that I told you”

The Pope is the successor to Peter, the first Pope
Matthew 16:18-19
18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock** I will build my church**, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven

 

[teancum79]

No, the Pope can have Fruedian slips just like you or me. The Pope is guided by the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, when making an infallible definition on faith and morals.

John 14:15-17 “ “If you love me, and obey the commands I give you, I will ask the Father and he will give you another Paraclete-to be with you always:** the Spirit of truth **whom the world cannot accept, since it neither sees or recognizes him; but you can recognize him because he remains with you and will be within you”
John 14:26 “The Paraclete, the Holy Spirit whom the Father will send in my name, will instruct you in everything, and remind you of all that I told you”

The Pope is the successor to Peter, the first Pope
Matthew 16:18-19
18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock** I will build my church**, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven

Yes sorry if I was not clear. I was revering to the ideal when the Pope does not mis speak forget a word etc. in that case his words would be considered perfect.

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

There have been two definitive ex cathedra papal pronouncements, both reguarding Marian doctrine–the 1st being her Immaculate Conception the 2nd being her bodily Assumption into Heaven.

Some people hold that St. Peter’s pronouncement the gospel would be preached to Gentiles despite Jewish dietary laws as the first example.

I believe the Pope is part of an infallible declaration when he ratifies the Dogmatic declarations of an Ecumenical Council of bishops (who are in Communion with the Pope)

 

[SilentKnight]

So the Pope is just as human as the rest of us, but when they are teaching and they don’t suffer from Freudian slips etc. their teaching is perfect?

No. As I said immediately above your post, “Popes are perfectly capable of misspeaking when it comes to the Word of God also, unconsciously and consciously. The only guarantee of infallibility they have is when they are defining doctrine (dogma).” (Which is an extremely rare occurance to begin with.)

SK

 

[Joe_Kelley]

. .

Some people hold that St. Peter’s pronouncement the gospel would be preached to Gentiles despite Jewish dietary laws as the first example.
. . .

I would claim that Matthew 16:17 was the first

Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do men say that the Son of man is?” 14* And they said, “Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” 15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16* Simon Peter replied, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." 17* And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.

One might paraphrase Jesus’ response - “Hey that is an infallible statement. You must be the Pope.”

 

[TheGreenO]

I would claim that Matthew 16:17 was the first One might paraphrase Jesus’ response - “Hey that is an infallible statement. You must be the Pope.”

Awesome, I love that one! Never thought about that before, but hey who couldn’t agree with that infallible statement?

 

[ralphinal]

the actual count depends on whose definition you use. It is as low as two and as high as thousands, if you count canonization of Saints as an infallible act.

IN any event, it is a limited protection afforded him.

 

[Evan]

I would claim that Matthew 16:17 was the first One might paraphrase Jesus’ response - “Hey that is an infallible statement. You must be the Pope.”

I don’t think that qualifies as a papal statement. Peter was not the pope. He was a disciple. It was after this that Jesus indicated he WOULD be pope (head of the church on earth). When did he assume the office? Pentecost or at the ascension?

So long as Jesus was on earth, there was no other earthly head.

 

[Peter_J]

the actual count depends on whose definition you use. It is as low as two and as high as thousands, if you count canonization of Saints as an infallible act.

IN any event, it is a limited protection afforded him.

Vatican I tells us only that the Pope is infallible when he defines a dogma. (If you want to be more precise, “when he makes an ex cathedra statement”, but that essentially boils down to “when he defines a dogma”.) But Vatican I doesn’t rule out the possibility of the Pope exercising infallibility at other times.

Thus, for example, when the Pope canonizes a Saint, he isn’t defining a dogma, hence isn’t making an ex cathedra statement. Therefore, Vatican I doesn’t tell us that canonizing a Saint involves infallibility; neither does it say that it doesn’t.

Perhaps more importantly, Vatican I say nothing about any person other than the Pope exercising infallibility; yet we know that e.g. St. Paul exercised infallibility when he wrote Galatians, etc.

 

[judcath4]

All I know is when I met the pope in Rome last year, I was happy. He seemed perfect to me. I loved the Vatican, the rich art from centuries ago. People think the Vatican is loaded with money. The fact is that it has lots of historic art dating back from centuries ago.
Rome sweet home.

 

[ralphinal]

Vatican I tells us only that the Pope is infallible when he defines a dogma. (If you want to be more precise, “when he makes an ex cathedra statement”, but that essentially boils down to “when he defines a dogma”.) But Vatican I doesn’t rule out the possibility of the Pope exercising infallibility at other times.

Thus, for example, when the Pope canonizes a Saint, he isn’t defining a dogma, hence isn’t making an ex cathedra statement. Therefore, Vatican I doesn’t tell us that canonizing a Saint involves infallibility; neither does it say that it doesn’t.

Perhaps more importantly, Vatican I say nothing about any person other than the Pope exercising infallibility; yet we know that e.g. St. Paul exercised infallibility when he wrote Galatians, etc.

Correct, but only the Pope is garanteed the protection as a part of his position