Were all the Popes really infallible?

[BibleReader]

“Infallible” only exceptionally means “error free.” The workaday definition of infallibility is objectively different. It means, “You must accept the Pope’s teaching, and obey it, AS THOUGH he were infallible, even if you disagree with him, unless you can prove him wrong, to the extent of functionally total moral certainty.”

 

[BluegrassJimmie]

AlanFromWichita:

If he’s infallible like God on issues of faith and morals, then wouldn’t he be beyond time? I’d guess anything he’s ever said about faith and morals is infallible.

Alan

So then we potentially have a few infallible men running around, at least however may future popes are alive now…

 

[BluegrassJimmie]

“Infallible” only exceptionally means “error free.” The workaday definition of infallibility is objectively different. It means, “You must accept the Pope’s teaching, and obey it, AS THOUGH he were infallible, even if you disagree with him, unless you can prove him wrong, to the extent of functionally total moral certainty.”

But then this leaves the possibility that he is wrong from time to time, but we basically have to accept it as truth anyway. I mean, how do you prove he is wrong when we basically accept that he determines what is right?

 

[Fidei_Defensor]

justcatholic:

I believe the Pope is the head of the church, but I don’t personally see any Pope as infallible. Because they are only human and could decree teachings that might not really be true. What if I personally didn’t believe what the present day Pope of some Pope in the past decreed ex cathedra? What if some future Pope for example would decree Mary as a Co redeemer, alongside of Jesus being one. Would you accept that? I’ve also been told no Pope can err because the Holy Spirit keeps him from error. I just don’t believe that, do you?

YES you moron!

 

[challenger]

AlanFromWichita:

I gave myself the right. I didn’t say I intended or expected or even desired the Church to implement them. In fact, I specifically stated, “You may disagree; I’m not telling the Church what to do.” Perhaps if you reflect on it, you are actually agreeing with my previous sentence. Anyway, it sounds like you understand my intent even if you missed a few words.

The Church cannot implement more restrictions, because Vatican I already said: “One, two, three, infallible the pope be!” (insert catchy tune)

Alan:

You might have missed the drift, so I’ll try to clarify. These are certain things I think I would like to see in infallible teachings. For example, if the Church taught infallibly that a child must be given a polio vaccination of a certain kind, and then a better one comes into place, that would be technology dependent. A silly example to be sure, because it may not be considered faith and morals.

No, it isn’t considered faith and morals ; ). I think a better example for you would be if the Church approved a certain Scripture translation, and then a better one came into being. But the CHurch isn’t going to say “This translation is without all error”- and if it does, well, it can’t change, because it’s a matter of faith.

Alan:

It’s a need to know issue. If I’m the janitor all I need to know is how to get to work and when, what am I supposed to do, and where are the supplies to do it with. I don’t need to know, nor does the company need me to know, that those men I clean up after have decided unanimously to change the corporate logo. I don’t need a bunch of nerds coming in to spew a bunch of stuff at me that I can’t realy comprehend and don’t care about. What I care about is that they finish their spewing and get out so I can clean the stall behind them.

Yes, but originally you said it was “important on paper.” You don’t need to memorize every infallible thing a pope’s ever said, but the information needs to be there when you need it. E.g., teaching on abortion in the case of incest, a question which Protestantism (being without a central authority) is divided on.

Alan:

In the same way, I do not have to know every thought of the pope on faith and morals in order to live my simple life and do it properly. If I am happily married I really don’t need to know, for example, the intricacies of canon law on nulllity. If I were teachings on faith and morals, then I would need to be at least as much of an expert as I needed to teach properly.

That assumes your life is simple : ).

Alan:

Faithful Catholics don’t need the infallibility card to realize gay practices are wrong. Even sola scriptura (except the most dishonest ones) agree it is objectively wrong. For crying out loud, anyone with a brain can see that it is at least strange if not flat out wrong.

Then use a different example, like the one I mentioned earlier: abortion in the case of rape or incest.

Alan:

I’m glad you agree with me that a claim of “infallibility” is likely to be wasted on gay activists. If that’s not what you intended to agree with me about, I apologize and stand awaiting correction.

Alan

Infallibility is of course for people who accept it. But, for example, just because gay activists reject the natural law, doesn’t mean the natural law is only “important on paper”!

I’m going out of town and won’t be back till August 10 or so, by which time this thread will probably have died… if you want to discuss more my line is propugnatorfidei@gmail.com

 

[BluegrassJimmie]

BluegrassJimmie:

But then this leaves the possibility that he is wrong from time to time, but we basically have to accept it as truth anyway. I mean, how do you prove he is wrong when we basically accept that he determines what is right?

Still waiting for a response to this…

 

[Ignatius]

justcatholic:

I believe the Pope is the head of the church, but I don’t personally see any Pope as infallible. Because they are only human and could decree teachings that might not really be true. What if I personally didn’t believe what the present day Pope of some Pope in the past decreed ex cathedra? What if some future Pope for example would decree Mary as a Co redeemer, alongside of Jesus being one. Would you accept that? I’ve also been told no Pope can err because the Holy Spirit keeps him from error. I just don’t believe that, do you?

A Faith is what one believes. If one is of the Catholic Faith, this means that one adheres to the beliefs of the Catholic Church. It doesn’t mean one may not have questions, but “one thousand questions does not one doubt make.” If one does not adhere to the beliefs of Catholics, can they really be said to have the Catholic Faith?

 

[Ignatius]

BluegrassJimmie:

But then this leaves the possibility that he is wrong from time to time, but we basically have to accept it as truth anyway. I mean, how do you prove he is wrong when we basically accept that he determines what is right?

Jimmie,

You may want to take a gander at this before posting again.

catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp

Your brother in Christ.

 

[EA_Man]

mlchance:

Well, I gather from your silence after a request for documentation means you either just made this stuff up (unlikely) or are ignorantly repeating some other person’s nonsense (likely).

The practice of infant Communion was never universal. It fell out of general usage in the West in the 9th century after an edict from the Council of Tours. “That infants and children not yet come to the use of reason may not only validly but even fruitfully receive the Blessed Eucharist is now the universally received opinion, but it is opposed to Catholic teaching to hold that this sacrament is necessary for their salvation (Council of Trent, Sess. XXI, can. iv)” (Catholic Encyclopedia, “Communion of Children”).

I can find no mention of infant Communion coming from either Innocent I or Gelasius I. Gelasius I did insist on the faithful receiving Communion in both kinds to combat an error of his day that any consumption of wine was sinful.

The Council of Trent (emphasis added):

Chapter IV. Finally, the same holy council teaches that little children who have not attained the use of reason are not by any necessity bound to the sacramental communion of the Eucharist; for having been regenerated by the laver of baptism and thereby incorporated with Christ, they cannot at that age lose the grace of the sons of God already acquired. Antiquity is not therefore to be condemned, however, if in some places it at one time observed that custom. For just as those most holy Fathers had acceptable ground for what they did under the circumstances, so it is certainly to be accepted without controversy that they regarded it as not necessary to salvation.

And the canon regarding this chapter:

Canon 4. If anyone says that communion of the Eucharist is necessary for little children before they have attained the years of discretion, let him be anathema.

– Mark L. Chance.

Ignaz von Dollinger’s The Pope and the Council (1870) pg 42.

Peace

 

[mlchance]

EA_Man:

Ignaz von Dollinger’s The Pope and the Council (1870) pg 42.

IOW, you don’t actually have any primary sources. You’ve got, at best, one page from a book written by a sectarian who was excommunicated from the Church.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[EA_Man]

mlchance:

IOW, you don’t actually have any primary sources. You’ve got, at best, one page from a book written by a sectarian who was excommunicated from the Church.

– Mark L. Chance.

No primary source, my dog ate all of my 5th century Papal correspondence.

Nice ad hominem attack on von Dollinger. Considered even by Catholics to be one of the preeminent Ecclesiastical historians of the 19th century.

Peace

 

[mlchance]

EA_Man:

No primary source, my dog ate all of my 5th century Papal correspondence.

That’s funny, because I can still access ancient Church documents. Here’s an example: Canons from the First Council of Nicaea.

EA_Man:

Nice ad hominem attack on von Dollinger. Considered even by Catholics to be one of the preeminent Ecclesiastical historians of the 19th century.

Who was excommunicated for heresy precisely because of his refusal to accept Church dogma. This hardly qualifies him as authoritative on matters of dogma. Dollinger was a fine historian in many respects. In other respects, his talents were rather limited. The fact remains that you’ve made claims which you cannot substantiate.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[EA_Man]

mlchance:

Who was excommunicated for heresy precisely because of his refusal to accept Church dogma. This hardly qualifies him as authoritative on matters of dogma.

But does NOT disqualify him on HISTORICAL matters.

So basically what you want is a historian that is a “loyal Catholic” and provides evidence refuting church teaching - yeah, I’ll get right on that for you…

 

[mlchance]

EA_Man:

But does NOT disqualify him on HISTORICAL matters.

It may very well do that, but that’s not my point.

EA_Man:

So basically what you want is a historian that is a “loyal Catholic” and provides evidence refuting church teaching - yeah, I’ll get right on that for you…

No, I want actual evidence. Something other than a one page citation from a secondary source book published in 1870 written by a man with an axe to grind against the Church declaring dogma.

To review: You claimed that “Popes Innocent I and Gelasius I declared infant communion to be so indispensable that those who died without it go straight to hell.”

Have you presented any evidence supporting this claim? Nope, and, by your own admission earlier, you don’t have evidence because your dog ate it.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[EA_Man]

mlchance:

It may very well do that, but that’s not my point.

No, I want actual evidence. Something other than a one page citation from a secondary source book published in 1870 written by a man with an axe to grind against the Church declaring dogma.

To review: You claimed that “Popes Innocent I and Gelasius I declared infant communion to be so indispensable that those who died without it go straight to hell.”

Have you presented any evidence supporting this claim? Nope, and, by your own admission earlier, you don’t have evidence because your dog ate it.

– Mark L. Chance.

A simple ‘thank you’ to my will dog will suffice.