Infallibility: What's the deal?

[BushwigBill]

Hi Everyone!

This little discussion broke out in another thread, but I think it deserves its own as I am interested to hear everyone's opinions on the topic.

Anyway, in the other thread, "knee-v", a member of the Eastern-Orthodox faith, summarised the concept of infallibility like this:

"The Church does not "make" truth, nor is truth truth because it was spoken in a council. Truth IS. And truth is because God IS. Because there is God, there is Truth. God the Word became man, who said "I am the Way, the TRUTH, and the Life". The Church is the body of Christ, God the Word in flesh. And as Paul says, the "one flesh" of marriage is a mystery concerning Christ and the Church. We are one flesh with Christ. The Church is One with Christ, who is God, who is Truth. The Church is also filled with the Holy Spirit, who is the Spirit of Truth. Therefore Truth and the Church go hand in hand. The Truth exists within the Church. Truth fills the Church. Truth is united to the Church. The Church does not MAKE Truth. The Church MANIFESTS that Truth, because Truth is in the Church and the Church is in Truth. To say that Truth is not in the Church is to say that the Church is not the BODY of Christ, and is not FILLED with the Holy Spirit. At councils, the Church was not MAKING Truth. It was affirming the Truth that was already there, guided by the Holy Spirit "who will lead you into all Truth". Sometimes a Truth, although lived by the Church, was never expressed in words in great detail. Councils merely gave the proper expression of that Truth, which it needed in defense of something which was clearly NOT that Truth."

The principle itself makes perfect sense to me, but it seems to me that the error has been in defining who exactly that body of Christ is made up of. I would like to suggest that, rather than trusting every word uttered by an organisation which claims to be the one true church, we should in fact judge for ourselves as christians, whether or not that organisation is a part of the body of Christ, based on whether or not they seem to be messengers of God's truth.

As an example, I used Pope Gregory IX's decision to send inquisitors to France in order to root out heresy. From my perspective, this decision seems to have been largely political. Forcing people to choose between insincere repentance and death just doesn't seem to me like a decision inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Does anyone feel the same as I do about this, or am I all alone?

P.S.: Let's try to keep this friendly and be open to new ideas here. I know I'm arguing against what a lot of people firmly believe in, but please try to keep an open mind. My opinion is subject to change if anyone can provide a decent argument against it.

 

[Barraco]

Hi Everyone!

This little discussion broke out in another thread, but I think it deserves its own as I am interested to hear everyone's opinions on the topic.

Anyway, in the other thread, "knee-v", a member of the Eastern-Orthodox faith, summarised the concept of infallibility like this:

"The Church does not "make" truth, nor is truth truth because it was spoken in a council. Truth IS. And truth is because God IS. Because there is God, there is Truth. God the Word became man, who said "I am the Way, the TRUTH, and the Life". The Church is the body of Christ, God the Word in flesh. And as Paul says, the "one flesh" of marriage is a mystery concerning Christ and the Church. We are one flesh with Christ. The Church is One with Christ, who is God, who is Truth. The Church is also filled with the Holy Spirit, who is the Spirit of Truth. Therefore Truth and the Church go hand in hand. The Truth exists within the Church. Truth fills the Church. Truth is united to the Church. The Church does not MAKE Truth. The Church MANIFESTS that Truth, because Truth is in the Church and the Church is in Truth. To say that Truth is not in the Church is to say that the Church is not the BODY of Christ, and is not FILLED with the Holy Spirit. At councils, the Church was not MAKING Truth. It was affirming the Truth that was already there, guided by the Holy Spirit "who will lead you into all Truth". Sometimes a Truth, although lived by the Church, was never expressed in words in great detail. Councils merely gave the proper expression of that Truth, which it needed in defense of something which was clearly NOT that Truth."

The principle itself makes perfect sense to me, but it seems to me that the error has been in defining who exactly that body of Christ is made up of. I would like to suggest that, rather than trusting every word uttered by an organisation which claims to be the one true church, we should in fact judge for ourselves as christians, whether or not that organisation is a part of the body of Christ, based on whether or not they seem to be messengers of God's truth.

As an example, I used Pope Gregory IX's decision to send inquisitors to France in order to root out heresy. From my perspective, this decision seems to have been largely political. Forcing people to choose between insincere repentance and death just doesn't seem to me like a decision inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Does anyone feel the same as I do about this, or am I all alone?

P.S.: Let's try to keep this friendly and be open to new ideas here. I know I'm arguing against what a lot of people firmly believe in, but please try to keep an open mind. My opinion is subject to change if anyone can provide a decent argument against it.

I dunno. I think the Catholic Church lived up its purpose at protecting the truth by conserving it by unawareness. Though the doctrines got distorted, the Word was always preserved throughout the years, even when others tried to destroy it. Paul mentioned in 2Thessalonians 2 that the Spirit of Truth would be removed so that the man of sin can be revealed. A man that sits in God's temple(The Body of Christ) and proclaims to be God(the 'Holy Father') This man would lead many to their condemnation by lies. Paul comforted the Thessalonians by telling them that they are secure in the truth. The truth became a part for each Christian to judge when Martin Luther stepped into the scene. I would suggest that this would be the best means possible since Church divisions were sure to come. Now that men and women are aware of the truth again, I look forward to an outpouring of the Holy Spirit once more! God bless

 

[Henry4]

I love you

 

[Philip]

"The Church does not "make" truth, nor is truth truth because it was spoken in a council. Truth IS. And truth is because God IS. Because there is God, there is Truth. God the Word became man, who said "I am the Way, the TRUTH, and the Life". The Church is the body of Christ, God the Word in flesh. And as Paul says, the "one flesh" of marriage is a mystery concerning Christ and the Church. We are one flesh with Christ. The Church is One with Christ, who is God, who is Truth. The Church is also filled with the Holy Spirit, who is the Spirit of Truth. Therefore Truth and the Church go hand in hand. The Truth exists within the Church. Truth fills the Church. Truth is united to the Church. The Church does not MAKE Truth. The Church MANIFESTS that Truth, because Truth is in the Church and the Church is in Truth. To say that Truth is not in the Church is to say that the Church is not the BODY of Christ, and is not FILLED with the Holy Spirit. At councils, the Church was not MAKING Truth. It was affirming the Truth that was already there, guided by the Holy Spirit "who will lead you into all Truth". Sometimes a Truth, although lived by the Church, was never expressed in words in great detail. Councils merely gave the proper expression of that Truth, which it needed in defense of something which was clearly NOT that Truth."

Sounds good to me.

The principle itself makes perfect sense to me, but it seems to me that the error has been in defining who exactly that body of Christ is made up of. I would like to suggest that, rather than trusting every word uttered by an organisation which claims to be the one true church, we should in fact judge for ourselves as christians, whether or not that organisation is a part of the body of Christ, based on whether or not they seem to be messengers of God's truth.

This assumes that you know what God's Truth is outside of the Church that manifests the Truth. You would have to rely of human judgement rather than Divine revelation. In effect, you make yourself pope.

As an example, I used Pope Gregory IX's decision to send inquisitors to France in order to root out heresy. From my perspective, this decision seems to have been largely political. Forcing people to choose between insincere repentance and death just doesn't seem to me like a decision inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Without making any statements about the Church of Rome, I suggest that you are making the same error as the Donatists, equating the holiness of the Church with the holiness of one of its members.

 

[IgnatiusOfAntioch]

"The Church does not "make" truth, nor is truth truth because it was spoken in a council. Truth IS. And truth is because God IS. Because there is God, there is Truth. God the Word became man, who said "I am the Way, the TRUTH, and the Life". The Church is the body of Christ, God the Word in flesh. And as Paul says, the "one flesh" of marriage is a mystery concerning Christ and the Church. We are one flesh with Christ. The Church is One with Christ, who is God, who is Truth. The Church is also filled with the Holy Spirit, who is the Spirit of Truth. Therefore Truth and the Church go hand in hand. The Truth exists within the Church. Truth fills the Church. Truth is united to the Church. The Church does not MAKE Truth. The Church MANIFESTS that Truth, because Truth is in the Church and the Church is in Truth. To say that Truth is not in the Church is to say that the Church is not the BODY of Christ, and is not FILLED with the Holy Spirit. At councils, the Church was not MAKING Truth. It was affirming the Truth that was already there, guided by the Holy Spirit "who will lead you into all Truth". Sometimes a Truth, although lived by the Church, was never expressed in words in great detail. Councils merely gave the proper expression of that Truth, which it needed in defense of something which was clearly NOT that Truth."

Can't argue with perfection.

 

[Rick Otto]

Forgive me in advance, if I offend anyone's person, please... that is certainly not my intent, & I welcome any good advice on diplomacy.

If I'm not mistaken, "Pontificus Maximus" is a title taken from the Babylonian religion. Emperor Constantine needed to organize this previously illegal bunch in order to control them. It was simply a transfer of the emperor's presumed divinity which eventualy became known as the "divine right of kings".
It's all about man's centralization of authority to maintain structural integrity ("unity").
All kinds of flowery rationalizations are available to justify replacing the true head in order to hi-jack the body. Canon 9 of the Council of Trent is one thing that led to indulgence peddling & Martin Luther exposed it when he spotlighted grace.
Thank God for the Magna Carta, eh?

 

[prodromos]

Emperor Constantine needed to organize this previously illegal bunch in order to control them.

If that was truly his intent then he failed miserably.

John

 

[mystery4]

Hi Everyone!

This little discussion broke out in another thread, but I think it deserves its own as I am interested to hear everyone's opinions on the topic.

Anyway, in the other thread, "knee-v", a member of the Eastern-Orthodox faith, summarised the concept of infallibility like this:

"The Church does not "make" truth, nor is truth truth because it was spoken in a council. Truth IS. And truth is because God IS. Because there is God, there is Truth. God the Word became man, who said "I am the Way, the TRUTH, and the Life". The Church is the body of Christ, God the Word in flesh. And as Paul says, the "one flesh" of marriage is a mystery concerning Christ and the Church. We are one flesh with Christ. The Church is One with Christ, who is God, who is Truth. The Church is also filled with the Holy Spirit, who is the Spirit of Truth. Therefore Truth and the Church go hand in hand. The Truth exists within the Church. Truth fills the Church. Truth is united to the Church. The Church does not MAKE Truth. The Church MANIFESTS that Truth, because Truth is in the Church and the Church is in Truth. To say that Truth is not in the Church is to say that the Church is not the BODY of Christ, and is not FILLED with the Holy Spirit. At councils, the Church was not MAKING Truth. It was affirming the Truth that was already there, guided by the Holy Spirit "who will lead you into all Truth". Sometimes a Truth, although lived by the Church, was never expressed in words in great detail. Councils merely gave the proper expression of that Truth, which it needed in defense of something which was clearly NOT that Truth."

...

I reckon this statement has quite alot of merit to it. I agree that the church doesn't make truth, it merely acknowledges the truth that was already there, being led of God. That then makes the church one with God who is truth as was Jesus' prayer in John 17.

However where I do tend to disagree with this statement is its assumption that the church is always right and never falters. If the church after being revealed truth denies it or turns away then the church no longer holds the truth and so therefore is no longer one with God. An example of this is Israel. They thought because they were God's chosen people they would be saved, and as a result turned away from God and His truth.

The church is made up of humans, all of which sin and will continue to do so until Christ's return, therefore in my understanding, there will be times where it may falter in the truth, and is not perfect. But if we are willing to listen to God, and the church once being shown its error is willing to change again, then it will behold truth and be one with God once again.

 

[Rick Otto]

to an extent.
It worked quite well for The Battle of the Milvian Bridge, tho. And things didn't get completely 'out of hand' until The Reformation.
Even then, ecclesiology didn't completely shake off his influence, even if the theology did.
And even that has reverted back to Romanism in the largest part of Protestantism.

So here I am, a Christian without a denomination, x-Catholic AND x-Protestant.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

"knee-v", a member of the Eastern-Orthodox faith, summarised the concept of infallibility like this:

"The Church does not "make" truth, nor is truth truth because it was spoken in a council. Truth IS. And truth is because God IS. Because there is God, there is Truth. God the Word became man, who said "I am the Way, the TRUTH, and the Life". The Church is the body of Christ, God the Word in flesh. And as Paul says, the "one flesh" of marriage is a mystery concerning Christ and the Church. We are one flesh with Christ. The Church is One with Christ, who is God, who is Truth. The Church is also filled with the Holy Spirit, who is the Spirit of Truth. Therefore Truth and the Church go hand in hand. The Truth exists within the Church. Truth fills the Church. Truth is united to the Church. The Church does not MAKE Truth. The Church MANIFESTS that Truth, because Truth is in the Church and the Church is in Truth. To say that Truth is not in the Church is to say that the Church is not the BODY of Christ, and is not FILLED with the Holy Spirit. At councils, the Church was not MAKING Truth. It was affirming the Truth that was already there, guided by the Holy Spirit "who will lead you into all Truth". Sometimes a Truth, although lived by the Church, was never expressed in words in great detail. Councils merely gave the proper expression of that Truth, which it needed in defense of something which was clearly NOT that Truth."

Wow... sounds great...

Forgive me....

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Forgive me in advance, if I offend anyone's person, please... that is certainly not my intent, & I welcome any good advice on diplomacy.

If I'm not mistaken, "Pontificus Maximus" is a title taken from the Babylonian religion. Emperor Constantine needed to organize this previously illegal bunch in order to control them. It was simply a transfer of the emperor's presumed divinity which eventualy became known as the "divine right of kings".
It's all about man's centralization of authority to maintain structural integrity ("unity").
All kinds of flowery rationalizations are available to justify replacing the true head in order to hi-jack the body. Canon 9 of the Council of Trent is one thing that led to indulgence peddling & Martin Luther exposed it when he spotlighted grace.
Thank God for the Magna Carta, eh?

It was his intent... and he did fail miserably... he was a Pagan at the time and had won battles under the sign of the Cross, so he felt it his God given right to oversee Christianity... He offered to make Christianity the state religion as long as the Bishops could agree on doctrine and put it in writing... Something that he could use with authority...

He repented later and became truely Christian just before his death, and is listed as a Saint because he repented.

The seven "truely Ecumenical" councils, and their decrees and canons, are a product of The Holy Spirit's guidance.

Forgive me....

 

[march56]

Hi Everyone!

This little discussion broke out in another thread, but I think it deserves its own as I am interested to hear everyone's opinions on the topic.

Anyway, in the other thread, "knee-v", a member of the Eastern-Orthodox faith, summarised the concept of infallibility like this:

"The Church does not "make" truth, nor is truth truth because it was spoken in a council. Truth IS. And truth is because God IS. Because there is God, there is Truth. God the Word became man, who said "I am the Way, the TRUTH, and the Life". The Church is the body of Christ, God the Word in flesh. And as Paul says, the "one flesh" of marriage is a mystery concerning Christ and the Church. We are one flesh with Christ. The Church is One with Christ, who is God, who is Truth. The Church is also filled with the Holy Spirit, who is the Spirit of Truth. Therefore Truth and the Church go hand in hand. The Truth exists within the Church. Truth fills the Church. Truth is united to the Church. The Church does not MAKE Truth. The Church MANIFESTS that Truth, because Truth is in the Church and the Church is in Truth. To say that Truth is not in the Church is to say that the Church is not the BODY of Christ, and is not FILLED with the Holy Spirit. At councils, the Church was not MAKING Truth. It was affirming the Truth that was already there, guided by the Holy Spirit "who will lead you into all Truth". Sometimes a Truth, although lived by the Church, was never expressed in words in great detail. Councils merely gave the proper expression of that Truth, which it needed in defense of something which was clearly NOT that Truth."

The principle itself makes perfect sense to me, but it seems to me that the error has been in defining who exactly that body of Christ is made up of. I would like to suggest that, rather than trusting every word uttered by an organisation which claims to be the one true church, we should in fact judge for ourselves as christians, whether or not that organisation is a part of the body of Christ, based on whether or not they seem to be messengers of God's truth.

As an example, I used Pope Gregory IX's decision to send inquisitors to France in order to root out heresy. From my perspective, this decision seems to have been largely political. Forcing people to choose between insincere repentance and death just doesn't seem to me like a decision inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Does anyone feel the same as I do about this, or am I all alone?

P.S.: Let's try to keep this friendly and be open to new ideas here. I know I'm arguing against what a lot of people firmly believe in, but please try to keep an open mind. My opinion is subject to change if anyone can provide a decent argument against it.

5So the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, "Why don't your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders instead of eating their food with 'unclean' hands?" 6He replied, "Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written:
" 'These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
7They worship me in vain;
their teachings are but rules taught by men.'[b] 8You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men."

Kind of says it all doesn't it?

 

[Trento]

5So the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, "Why don't your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders instead of eating their food with 'unclean' hands?" 6He replied, "Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written:
" 'These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
7They worship me in vain;
their teachings are but rules taught by men.'[b] 8You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men."

Kind of says it all doesn't it?

You are neglecting to see that Jesus told people to obey their teachings. These teachings included extra-biblical tradition, because the Pharisees believed in oral tradition, received by Moses at the same time he received the Ten Commandments. You can't overcome this, no matter how hard you try. There is authority recognized by the Jewish tradition that had passed on this authority to the Pharisees and scribes. Moses’ seat referred to the right to interpret the Mosaic law. Jesus validated that right, independent of Scripture. The acceptance of succession is also noted. The Pharisees are seen as legal successors. This gives precedence for succession of the apostles.

Sitting on ‘Moses seat’ referred to a place of dignity and the right to interpret the Mosaic law. The scribes were the successors and the heirs of Moses’ authority and were rightfully looked to for pronouncements upon his teaching . . . Jesus does not appear to challenge this right”. Encyclopedia of the Bible, ed. Walter A. Elwell [Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Book House, 1988], 2:1498

[SIZE=-1]The scribes, mostly Pharisees, copied, taught, and applied the Mosaic Law. They were pledged to obey and teach both the written law and the oral tradition, which they claimed was an integral part of the Law, received through a direct succession of teachers going back to Moses . . . Moses' seat [was a] synagogue chair which symbolized the origin and authority of their teaching. Jesus does not challenge their claim; he seems here to approve it.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1](A Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Matthew, New York: Harper & Row, 1960, 243; [/SIZE]


[SIZE=-1]In presenting St. Paul's speech before the Sanhedrin, Luke depicts:[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]. . . Christianity and Pharisaism as natural allies, hence the direct continuity between the Pharisaic branch of Judaism and Christianity. The link is expressed directly in Paul's own testimony: he is (now) a Pharisee, with a Pharisaic heritage (23:6). His Pharisaic loyalty is a present commitment, not a recently jettisoned stage of his religious past (cf. Phil 3:5-9). His Christian proclamation of a risen Lord, and by implication, of a risen humanity (Acts 23:6), represents a particular, but defensible, form of Pharisaic theology "[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]As a further cause for boasting in Philippians, Paul claims to be a Pharisee. Here the term was defined with precision. The expression 'as to the Law a Pharisee' refers to the oral Law. . . . Paul thereby understood himself as a member of the scholarly class who taught the twofold Law. By saying that the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat (Mt 23:2), Jesus was indicating they were authoritative teachers of the Law. . . . In summary, Paul was saying that he was a Hebrew-speaking interpreter and teacher of the oral and written Law[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1](Harper's Bible Commentary, 1111)[/SIZE]
​

 

[PaulAckermann]

Hi Everyone!

As an example, I used Pope Gregory IX's decision to send inquisitors to France in order to root out heresy. From my perspective, this decision seems to have been largely political. Forcing people to choose between insincere repentance and death just doesn't seem to me like a decision inspired by the Holy Spirit.

First of all, according to the Catholic faith, a pope can make a a bad decision as long as it is not ex cathdra and still be infallible. This is consistent with the notion of infallibility in the Bible. For instance, we would all agree that Peter was infallible. For us Catholics, he was infallible because he was the Pope. But even Protestants would attest that Peter was infallible, not because he was Pope, but because he was an Apostle. If Peter was not infallible, we might as well tear I Peter and II Peter out of the Bible. And yet in Galation 2, Paul describes an incident of Peter making a very bad decision. He withdrew from the Gentiles when confronted from the party of Jame. To Paul, this action was a denial of the gospel.

Infallity only means that God would not allow that person to teach false doctrine. Peter was the first Apostle to teach the unversality of the gospel. Paul was not criticizing his teaching, but that his actions contradicting his teaching. Peter is guarded from teaching heresy, but he can still make bad decisions.
Throughout history, there has been popes who made decisions. St Catherine of Sienna, who once called the Pope "my Christ", still criticized the Pope at her time for living in Aragon instead of Rome. In matters of dogma, she would submit to the pope. But other than that, she saw the pope as being capable of rebuke.

Second, I would encourage you to read modern books onm the Inquisition. There seem to be a current change of thought. The Inquisition was not as bad as we thought they were. In a democracy, a leader has a right to lead because the people voted for him. But democracy is a modern invention. Before democracy, a leader justified his right to rule by appealing to the religion of the time. In pre-Cristian Rome, an emperor declared to himself the right to rule because he himself was a god. This was the pre-Christian felt so threatened by Christians who said he was not god. If he was not god, he had no more right to rule than anyone else. In Christendom, the emperor or king was crowned by either the Pope of a bishop. So his right to rule came from the Church. Then the leader justified his rule not by being god, but because he was ordained by God's Church. For someone to teach different doctrine other than what Church threatened the emperor or king as much as the Church hieracrhy. If the Church was wrong on doctrrine, then the Church could be wrong in ordaining that emperor or king. The ruler has no divine right to rule. People would submit to their leader because rebellion could excommunicate them from the Church. But if the Church is not from God, then people can be free to rebel against their ruler without losing their souls. So in that time, the rules had a vested interest in keeping the doctrine in line. Otherwise, there would be anarchy. Remember, nobody even thought of the voting booth. If the king had no divine right, then who would rule. Anarchy! The rulers would not allow this, and they would have had mass executions to prevent this. Modern scholars have now realized that the Popes at that time sent inquisitors to ensure that only the guilty were punished. Without the inquistor, a simple accusation would have brought an execution.
It is easy for us in our time of history to judge people of another time. It is more difficult to try to understand their perspective.

 

[countyfair]

Sounds good to me.



This assumes that you know what God's Truth is outside of the Church that manifests the Truth. You would have to rely of human judgement rather than Divine revelation. In effect, you make yourself pope.



Without making any statements about the Church of Rome, I suggest that you are making the same error as the Donatists, equating the holiness of the Church with the holiness of one of its members.

Lol. That is so funny. You know why I know what God's truth is outside of the church? I know this, because if truth is indeed truth (heehee), then it will still be truth, whether there is a church or not. Does not Jesus or someone say that the spirit of god will lead into all truth? Does not God say that wherever two or more are gathered in her name, that there he will be also? I think so. So, I have decided to form my own church, called "Church of the Imortal Trees", and we will conduct our own mass, wearing white sheets, under moonlight in an oak grove! There will be candles and incense, too for those who prefer. We will read the Bible, and pray, and tell stories about how God has worked in our lives. Maybe there will be cookies too! IM me if you are interested!!

By the way... I am the pope.

 

[Soul_Golem]

The definition of infallibility is: do it because I said so. Successful Christians need no such authority, because their authority comes from God. There is also a different from the Word and infallibility. The Word, as stated in the Bible, is equal to God. The notion that a man can be infallible is no different than making that claim of equality to the Word. Not everything the men who put together the Bible was straight out of the mouth of God. Yet, the Bible makes the distinction between what it teaches and what the Word says. That is what the entire religious conflict stems from. Just read your Bible, it is full of doubt that comes from righteous men called to serve God. Moses himself doubted what God would want to do with him, but after doing what he was told by God he did not pursue infallibility.

 

[freespiritchurch]

Infallibility is not "do it because I said so." There are actually pretty strict limits on what the Pope can say infallibly. He is only supposed to declare something infallibly if it's got a long basis in tradition and is a consensus belief of the Catholic faithful. He's absolutely prohibited from contradicting previous infallible statements, either of Popes or Councils.

It's true that the pope doesn't need anyone else's consent or permission to make an infallible declaration, but he couldn't just make something up and proclaim it infallibly. Catholic teaching holds, if I understand it, that the guidance of the Holy Spirit will prevent a Pope from ever making an infallible statement about something controversial--and to be fair, it's worked so far. There have only been two infallible statements in history, and neither of them was controversial within the Catholic church of the time. If a pope did say something that was questionable, it would produce one heck of a "constitutional crisis" within the Roman Church.

 

[Soul_Golem]

Infallibility is not "do it because I said so." There are actually pretty strict limits on what the Pope can say infallibly. He is only supposed to declare something infallibly if it's got a long basis in tradition and is a consensus belief of the Catholic faithful. He's absolutely prohibited from contradicting previous infallible statements, either of Popes or Councils.

It's true that the pope doesn't need anyone else's consent or permission to make an infallible declaration, but he couldn't just make something up and proclaim it infallibly. Catholic teaching holds, if I understand it, that the guidance of the Holy Spirit will prevent a Pope from ever making an infallible statement about something controversial--and to be fair, it's worked so far. There have only been two infallible statements in history, and neither of them was controversial within the Catholic church of the time. If a pope did say something that was questionable, it would produce one heck of a "constitutional crisis" within the Roman Church.

I know what you mean about the rules the Pope must follow, but it still is a matter of people believing they should tell other people what is infallible. Infallibility was invented by the Catholic church. No matter how they go about exercising infallibility, the claim that a statement made by officials of the church can be infallible is an invention of the Catholic church.

 

[freespiritchurch]

I know what you mean about the rules the Pope must follow, but it still is a matter of people believing they should tell other people what is infallible. Infallibility was invented by the Catholic church. No matter how they go about exercising infallibility, the claim that a statement made by officials of the church can be infallible is an invention of the Catholic church.

Well, that's only true if you consider Orthodox to be Catholic too. Both Orthodox and Catholics believe that the decisions of an ecumenical council--a meeting of all the orthodox bishops of the world--can produce infallible statements of doctrine.

 

[countyfair]

Well, that's only true if you consider Orthodox to be Catholic too. Both Orthodox and Catholics believe that the decisions of an ecumenical council--a meeting of all the orthodox bishops of the world--can produce infallible statements of doctrine.

Lmao. You are so catholic.