Is anyone else uncomfortable with Papal Infallibility?

[Markie Boy]

At best I can say this is "not my favorite". After giving history what I consider to be a fair read, I just don't see this doctrine as supportable. We have had heretical popes before - and we have one right before our eyes.

Even many conservative Catholic apologists/news outlets can't help but say the pope has done and said heretical things.

And being that the only way the doctrine of Infallibility sort of is plausible, is with a bunch of fine print listing all sort of conditions - which seems to fly in the face of "let your yes be yes, and no be no."

Reason I bring this up is I think it's the "Loyalty to the institution" that has caused much of the decay, and spread the idea that clergy are above everyone else. I actually sat in a CCD class recently where the teacher described how the clergy are closer to God than we are - it was uncomfortable and putting the wrong idea in kids heads.

I think it's the mindset it created that caused much of our problems - and I don't know if things will get fixed until they are more in line with God's will.

Has anyone else had this thought - or do most simply leave by the time they get here?

 

[AvilaSurfer]

Given it’s tight parameters and the number of times it’s actually been used, no I don’t have a problem with it.

 

[Markie Boy]

When one reads how Vatican I went, and how there was not a real majority like was historically needed - it seems a council out of step with history.

Papal Infallibility

 

[Lady Bug]

I mean no disrespect lol but wouldn't your threads be perfect for the Baptist forum or something?

 

[zippy2006]

When one reads how Vatican I went, and how there was not a real majority like was historically needed - it seems a council out of step with history.

Papal Infallibility

In the preliminary vote on papal infallibility it was unconditionally favored by 75% of the voting bishops and conditionally favored by 85%. If we add the 55 that your source claims refrained from voting but opposed the doctrine the percentages fall to 69% and 78%. That still surpasses even the supermajority that your source falsely claims was not met.

Be cautious of your sources, as this is a polemical area. In your last thread on this topic you made a mistake regarding Newman, probably also based on unscrupulous sources.

 

[zippy2006]

I mean no disrespect lol but wouldn't your threads be perfect for the Baptist forum or something?

There is nothing wrong with inquiry. In general Catholics tend to be much more conscientious and rational than the Jack Chick crowd, so no, this sort of thread has no place in an anti-Catholic forum, and the Baptists would be altogether uncomfortable with sources that the Old Catholics are drawing on to oppose papal infallibility.

 

[Markie Boy]

No disrespect taken. I also post on TAW, and really like it there - and I have gotten in the habit of asking for Orthodox only replies.

I don't like the feeding frenzy of every protestant's $0.02.

 

[zippy2006]

Reason I bring this up is I think it's the "Loyalty to the institution" that has caused much of the decay, and spread the idea that clergy are above everyone else. I actually sat in a CCD class recently where the teacher described how the clergy are closer to God than we are - it was uncomfortable and putting the wrong idea in kids heads.

I think it's the mindset it created that caused much of our problems - and I don't know if things will get fixed until they are more in line with God's will.

Clericalism is a frustrating reality of the Church, but I'm not sure papal infallibility is to blame for clericalism. Papal infallibility simply isn't an authoritarian doctrine, and it just hasn't been used that way.

I do sympathize with you regarding clericalism, but it is something that must be approached with nuance. Authentic clerical--and especially episcopal--authority is grounded in Holy Orders and education. In recent times the educational gap between laity and clergy has decreased, and yet on average the theological education gap is still significant. But even apart from education Orders and hierarchy are essential parts of the Church. Any criticism of clericalism worth its salt needs to take all of this into account.

The other thing to remember is that while Francis puts a special stress on Catholicism, problems with clergy, hierarchy, and bureaucracy are present in all Christian bodies, even Orthodoxy. It's also worth recognizing that OBOB has a terrible bias. When you're living off of LifeSiteNews you're bound to be malnourished. Broaden your view and you will find that the situation isn't as dire as some would paint it:

US bishops: Pope Francis talks Fr. James Martin, euthanasia, at private meeting
Pope Francis Won't Allow Married Men As Priests, Women As Deacons

 

[Michie]

No disrespect taken. I also post on TAW, and really like it there - and I have gotten in the habit of asking for Orthodox only replies.

I don't like the feeding frenzy of every protestant's $0.02.

Mark- you might find this of interest.
US Bishops: Pope Francis Talks Fr. James Martin, Euthanasia, At Private Meeting

My questions is if the pope felt used by Martin, why does he not silence the confusion Martin spreads?

As far as infallibility, I’m ok with it so far as it is rarely used.

 

[Bob Crowley]

As an ex-Protestant who thinks it is important for the churches to reunify under the Catholic umbrella, I'm wary of the doctrine of Papal Infallibility. It's a huge barrier in that regard.

I'm aware it's only been invoked twice since it's formal inception circa 1870 (150 years - usual snail paced Catholic proceedings), although there were previous instances where Papal Infallibility was accepted as "understood".

From Wikipedia - Papal infallibility - Wikipedia

Ineffabilis Deus, Pope Pius IX, 1854, defining the Immaculate Conception;
Munificentissimus Deus, Pope Pius XII, 1950, defining the Assumption of Mary.

Note that both of these were to do with affirming Marian traditions.

My concern is twofold - the first is the barrier it imposes to eventual reunification of the churches. The second is that once a creeping sense of "infallibility" moves in, it makes it very difficult to effect change, and not just in the Catholic Church.

I well remember a review many years ago of our local Presbyterian Church by a body set up to review churches. I disagreed with some of their findings, but as the pastor remarked "Once they get appointed to these sorts of things, they start to think they're infallible."

 

[Markie Boy]

As an ex-Protestant who thinks it is important for the churches to reunify under the Catholic umbrella, I'm wary of the doctrine of Papal Infallibility. It's a huge barrier in that regard.

I'm aware it's only been invoked twice since it's formal inception circa 1870 (150 years - usual snail paced Catholic proceedings), although there were previous instances where Papal Infallibility was accepted as "understood".

From Wikipedia - Papal infallibility - Wikipedia



Note that both of these were to do with affirming Marian traditions.

My concern is twofold - the first is the barrier it imposes to eventual reunification of the churches. The second is that once a creeping sense of "infallibility" moves in, it makes it very difficult to effect change, and not just in the Catholic Church.

I well remember a review many years ago of our local Presbyterian Church by a body set up to review churches. I disagreed with some of their findings, but as the pastor remarked "Once they get appointed to these sorts of things, they start to think they're infallible."

I agree - defining that was the single biggest thing they could have done to damage unity - not even with all the protestants - but simply with the Eastern Orthodox. That in itself makes it highly suspect, as Jesus wants us to be one.

The other is that if it was historically true and everyone understood it - why bother with all the Councils, why not just have the pope decide?

And nobody can agree on a list of Infallible statement throughout history - nobody. Which means it wasn't so clear.

Certain things that stem from it - like the pope appointing bishops around the globe is hugely problematic to me, where they used to be appointed and dealt with more locally.

It's simply not Apostolic, or the Apostles would not have asked Jesus who would be the greatest among them like in Luke 22:

A dispute also arose among them, as to which of them was to be regarded as the greatest. 25And he said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, and those in authority over them are called benefactors. 26But not so with you. Rather, let the greatest among you become as the youngest, and the leader as one who serves.

 

[chevyontheriver]

As an ex-Protestant who thinks it is important for the churches to reunify under the Catholic umbrella, I'm wary of the doctrine of Papal Infallibility. It's a huge barrier in that regard.

I'm aware it's only been invoked twice since it's formal inception circa 1870 (150 years - usual snail paced Catholic proceedings), although there were previous instances where Papal Infallibility was accepted as "understood".

From Wikipedia - Papal infallibility - Wikipedia



Note that both of these were to do with affirming Marian traditions.

There is a third which I think actually qualifies. It's much more recent. It's pope John Paul II's teaching on how it is not possible for the Church to ordain women to the priesthood. The only challenge to that being an infallible teaching is that it is clearly part of the ordinary teaching of the Church, and thus already infallibly fixed.

 

[Markie Boy]

I agree Chevy - my old Baptist church was very conservative and they knew women should not be pastors as well. I agree with that teaching.

But I think it also illustrates the point - nobody can really make a list of infallible statements over history. If they could, the list would exist - the Catholic Church is very good at making things like that.

 

[chevyontheriver]

I agree Chevy - my old Baptist church was very conservative and they knew women should not be pastors as well. I agree with that teaching.

But I think it also illustrates the point - nobody can really make a list of infallible statements over history. If they could, the list would exist - the Catholic Church is very good at making things like that.

I agree that infallible statements should be stated unambiguously. My point is I think John Paul II's statement on the inability to ordain women reached that clarity except for people who still hold out for ordination of women. They will stubbornly hold out for their cherished hope.

 

[PloverWing]

There is a third which I think actually qualifies. It's much more recent. It's pope John Paul II's teaching on how it is not possible for the Church to ordain women to the priesthood.

I had no idea that was considered to be ex cathedra, and thus infallible. Maybe Markie Boy has a point. How does one tell when the pope is making an ex cathedra statement? I always thought it would be marked in an obvious way, with a special ceremony of some kind, but maybe it isn't.

(To clarify, since tone of voice isn't always obvious in written posts: I'm not trying to raise an objection here; I'm just asking about the practicalities of the process.)

 

[AvilaSurfer]

There is a third which I think actually qualifies. It's much more recent. It's pope John Paul II's teaching on how it is not possible for the Church to ordain women to the priesthood. The only challenge to that being an infallible teaching is that it is clearly part of the ordinary teaching of the Church, and thus already infallibly fixed.

That was not ex cathedra.

 

[chevyontheriver]

That was not ex cathedra.

The used language looks like it should be. Wikipedia has this:

The letter concludes with the words:

Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of Our ministry of confirming the brethren.[4] We declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful.[a]

That's pretty convincing to me.

And then:

In a responsum ad dubium (reply to a doubt) explicitly approved by Pope John Paul II and dated October 1995, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued its opinion that the teaching of Ordinatio sacerdotalis had been "set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium" and accordingly was "to be held definitively, as belonging to the deposit of faith".[6][7]

And thus it is infallible not because of papal infallibility but because of the infallibility of the Church in the ordinary magisterium.

And it goes on:

In 1998, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued another opinion, a Doctrinal Commentary on Ad tuendam fidem,[8] which said that the teaching of Ordinatio sacerdotalis was not taught as being divinely revealed explicitly, although it might someday be so taught in the future, that is to say, it has not been determined whether the doctrine is "to be considered an intrinsic part of revelation or only a logical consequence", yet in either case it is certainly definitive and to be believed infallibly.

So I guess the Vatican has spoken and it is settled. It is not an infallible statement by John Paul II, but the understanding of the ordinary magisterium. Oh well.

 

[AvilaSurfer]

The used language looks like it should be. Wikipedia has this:

That's pretty convincing to me.

And then:

And thus it is infallible not because of papal infallibility but because of the infallibility of the Church in the ordinary magisterium.

And it goes on:

So I guess the Vatican has spoken and it is settled. It is not an infallible statement by John Paul II, but the understanding of the ordinary magisterium. Oh well.

I don’t go to Wikipedia for my Catholic news. Everything I’ve read in any Catholic source says it was an Apostolic Letter.

 

[Markie Boy]

And that's why there is no list of Infallible statements made by popes down thru the centuries. Nobody really knows what is and isn't, and there is not enough clarity to tell. Which means Papal Infallibility simply was not so clear from the beginning.

You could get ten Catholic theologians and ten Catholic apologists in a room and they'd never come up with a list they agree on. This to me simply shows it's not "clearly Apostolic".

 

[zippy2006]

And that's why there is no list of Infallible statements made by popes down thru the centuries. Nobody really knows what is and isn't, and there is not enough clarity to tell. Which means Papal Infallibility simply was not so clear from the beginning.

You could get ten Catholic theologians and ten Catholic apologists in a room and they'd never come up with a list they agree on. This to me simply shows it's not "clearly Apostolic".

No, the truth is that there are certain doctrines that are known to be infallibly defined by the Pope, and there are others that are arguable. Vatican I confirmed papal infallibility and the Pope is certainly capable of defining a doctrine as infallible. It would look like this:

By the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.

-Munificentissimus Deus
​

No confusion there!