Papal Infallibility (Pope Innerancy). Can the Pope ever be in the wrong?

[Presbyterian Continuist]

You're describing the notion of "papal impeccability" (which isn't believed), not papal infallibility.

From what I understand it is when the Pope speaks "ex cathedra" that what he says is absolute truth and therefore infallible. It is interesting to note that for the first 1000 years of the Church, the Pope was not considered infallible in what he said. In fact, many popes shied away from the Church councils of bishops because they would not agree with what the popes were teaching.

Some of these popes were adulterers (one was killed by a husband who found him in bed with his wife), fornicators with prostitutes, ordered the slaughter of tens of thousands who resisted them, and yet, when they spoke "ex cathedra" they were viewed as infallible and their words were equal to the word of God.

 

[crossnote]

I believe Jesus was referring to the OLD Testament when he was saying "It is written". The New Testament hadn't been written yet during Christ's teaching ministry.

The point is there was already a Canon of 2/3 of what we call Scripture.
Peter also called Paul's writings Scripture, which covers 2/3 of the non Gospel accounts.
Luke was a travelling companion of Paul which accounts for Acts and Luke and so forth and so on...

2 Peter 3:15-16 KJV
[15] And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; [16] As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

 

[prodromos]

From what I understand, the Catholic doctrine of Papal Infallibility states, in a nutshell, that when the Pope says something true, he is infallible.
Since this is true of everyone, it is basically a nonsense doctrine in my not so humble opinion.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

This question is mainly to Catholics but anyone can answer with Scripture.

Do you believe in "papal infallibility"? That is to say, can the Pope ever sin or be in sin? Can he ever be wrong in His official teaching, views, actions, or beliefs? Since you believe Peter was the first Pope of the Church, do you know of a case in Scripture where this earthly leader of the universal church was in the wrong and had to be rebuked/corrected by someone else on earth?

Scriptures to read:
Galatians 2:11-21

Is the pope sinless? No. So he is fallible. I believe it is the doctrines of a pope that has authority, in which there have been many.

You can read the history of pope's and what they have contributed to the RCC.
Blessings

 

[NothingIsImpossible]

As a non-catholic I was taught the pope is simply a man who is imperfect like everyone else, he can be wrong and has been wrong. At times I find even catholics disagree with decisions he (or past ones) has made. Granted I do realize the catholic church see him as someone special.

 

[ralfyman]

Please read this part of the Catechism for more details.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

As a non-catholic I was taught the pope is simply a man who is imperfect like everyone else, he can be wrong and has been wrong. At times I find even catholics disagree with decisions he (or past ones) has made. Granted I do realize the catholic church see him as someone special.

Many people were tortured in the 1200s by the Inquisition and burned at the stake for saying exactly what you said. And the principles of the Inquisition are still on the books and have never been repealed, although the Pope no longer has the power to carry them out.

 

[Tomm]

From what I understand, the Catholic doctrine of Papal Infallibility states, in a nutshell, that when the Pope says something true, he is infallible.
Since this is true of everyone, it is basically a nonsense doctrine in my not so humble opinion.

That's not what "Papal Infallibility" is all about.
You should have fully understood the doctrine before making any statement on it.

Anyway, you said when the Pope says something true, he is infallible. But of course, if he says something that's true, he wouldn't be in error. I don't know what you are trying to say.

The Pope is infallible only if he's talking about Church doctrines, not anything else, for he will be guided by the Holy Spirit. Any person other than the Pope won't be guided by the Holy Spirit when it comes to making judgement on Church teachings, that explains why there are 1000+ denominations in the world.

 

[Just_a_Christian]

This question is mainly to Catholics but anyone can answer with Scripture.

Do you believe in "papal infallibility"? That is to say, can the Pope ever sin or be in sin? Can he ever be wrong in His official teaching, views, actions, or beliefs? Since you believe Peter was the first Pope of the Church, do you know of a case in Scripture where this earthly leader of the universal church was in the wrong and had to be rebuked/corrected by someone else on earth?

Scriptures to read:
Galatians 2:11-21

Great lead into a loaded question. Loaded or not, the truth to the matter is the "papal office" is a man made office. God wants unity, like mindedness, the same judgements, the same preaching, no divisions and yet He decided to LEAVE OUT of His inspired writings or God's "last" will and testament, His appointment of a "pope". Or He forgot. This subject possibly being the greatest controversy in the history of Christianity. Surely God being ALL KNOWING would be privy to the fact that appointing a "Presidential" office to Christianity and NOT making it crystal clear would create confusion. God went into great detail concerning Christ's role in the church. He compared His role to that of the husband, in the marriage, so we could completely comprehend. God did not attempt to help us understand the pope's role. Why? Because God didn't mention the pope. Why? A pope was not in God's plan to reconcile man. Peter, the 1st "pope" according to Catholicism, told the New Testament church to not let their liberty to become a cloke of maliciousness.
Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme;Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men:As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God.
1 Peter 2:13-16
I ask any and everyone with an ear to hear. What would any reasonable person call the act of getting monetary gain ,while not only, not doing the task but also selling a promise which was an impossibility? This act being pretty much the same as selling a wonderful homesite right next to Chernobyl. When one looks up the definition of maliciousness they should find **see indulgences**. Not only this but Paul warned the New Testament church that there was a "falling away" or an apostasy coming soon. Soon meaning the process had already began. See 2 Thessalonians 2. Just because Catholicism has history back to the 1st century does not in any way make Catholicism the New Testament church. Compare the two, apples and oranges. In my opinion, many people are drawn to Catholicism because they enjoy the idea of being associated with the church history. The concept is indeed awesome. In fact if Catholicism had Biblical proof I would be a Catholic myself.
Oh, to satisfy the OP, Paul reprimanded Peter for being somewhat hypocritical by avoiding the Gentiles when the Jews were watching.
In Him

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Great lead into a loaded question. Loaded or not, the truth to the matter is the "papal office" is a man made office. God wants unity, like mindedness, the same judgements, the same preaching, no divisions and yet He decided to LEAVE OUT of His inspired writings or God's "last" will and testament, His appointment of a "pope". Or He forgot. This subject possibly being the greatest controversy in the history of Christianity. Surely God being ALL KNOWING would be privy to the fact that appointing a "Presidential" office to Christianity and NOT making it crystal clear would create confusion. God went into great detail concerning Christ's role in the church. He compared His role to that of the husband, in the marriage, so we could completely comprehend. God did not attempt to help us understand the pope's role. Why? Because God didn't mention the pope. Why? A pope was not in God's plan to reconcile man. Peter, the 1st "pope" according to Catholicism, told the New Testament church to not let their liberty to become a cloke of maliciousness.
Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme;Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men:As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God.
1 Peter 2:13-16
I ask any and everyone with an ear to hear. What would any reasonable person call the act of getting monetary gain ,while not only, not doing the task but also selling a promise which was an impossibility? This act being pretty much the same as selling a wonderful homesite right next to Chernobyl. When one looks up the definition of maliciousness they should find **see indulgences**. Not only this but Paul warned the New Testament church that there was a "falling away" or an apostasy coming soon. Soon meaning the process had already began. See 2 Thessalonians 2. Just because Catholicism has history back to the 1st century does not in any way make Catholicism the New Testament church. Compare the two, apples and oranges. In my opinion, many people are drawn to Catholicism because they enjoy the idea of being associated with the church history. The concept is indeed awesome. In fact if Catholicism had Biblical proof I would be a Catholic myself.
Oh, to satisfy the OP, Paul reprimanded Peter for being somewhat hypocritical by avoiding the Gentiles when the Jews were watching.
In Him

Peter was never the first pope. There is no record in the writings of the church fathers that Peter was ever a bishop of Rome. In fact, all the references to Peter in the writings of the church father right through to Augustine never mention him as a bishop of anywhere.

Also, there could not have been any Apostolic succession from one pope to another, because church history shows that successive popes killed and deposed each other; other popes installed their teenage children (in spite of the celibacy requirement for priests), until another contender came along and rolled him.

Apostolic succession involves an Apostle laying hands on his successor, who lays hands on his successor and so on through the development of the church. In reality, although it might have happened in the first 300 years of the church, when Constantine came to be Emperor, he appointed the bishop of Rome being his choice. Apostolic succession was interrupted at this point and was never re-instituted.

At some stage, when the pope had total control over the whole church and over emperors, when he made a doctrinal statement, no one would withstand him because of the threat of excommunication and exclusion from all rights of society. It was at this point the pope issued a statement that Peter was the first pope, and that every other pope was instituted through Apostolic succession having the authority of Peter passed on from one pope to another. Of course, this was all a lie, and we can easily see that church history shows otherwise.

For 1000 years everyone in countries controlled by the Roman Catholic church obeyed whatever the pope said, on pain of excommunication, and in many case, death. When the pope instructed that Christians were not to marry Jews, anyone who disobeyed was severely punished. When the Pope issued a crusade against the non-Catholic Christians of Southern France, he was obeyed without question.

When Pope John Paul II visited countries dominated by the RCC in South America, he instructed that those in non-Catholic Christian groups were to be suppressed to preserve the "purity" of the Catholic faith. He was obeyed without question by those who burned Protestant churches and killed thousands of Protestant Christians. So this unquestioned obedience to the Pope in some countries is still the norm today.

 

[prodromos]

when Constantine came to be Emperor, he appointed the bishop of Rome being his choice.

Citation needed, but won't be provided because none exists. It never happened. When did "Do not bear false witness against your neighbor" cease to be a thing?

At some stage, when the pope had total control over the whole church and over emperors, when he made a doctrinal statement, no one would withstand him because of the threat of excommunication and exclusion from all rights of society.

Another fake history. The Pope never had control over the whole Church or over emperors.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Citation needed, but won't be provided because none exists. It never happened. When did "Do not bear false witness against your neighbor" cease to be a thing?

Another fake history. The Pope never had control over the whole Church or over emperors.

Of course, Catholic historians will give one version, and other historians will give another. The more accurate and believable history would be written by ones who don't have a religious stake in what they write.

Such powerful popes as Alexander III (r. 1159 – 81), Innocent III (r. 1198 – 1216), Gregory IX (r. 1227 – 41), and Innocent IV (r. 1243 – 54) wielded a primacy over the church that attempted to vindicate a jurisdictional supremacy over emperors and kings in temporal and spiritual affairs.
Papal supremacy - Wikipedia

 

[prodromos]

Of course, Catholic historians will give one version, and other historians will give another. The more accurate and believable history would be written by ones who don't have a religious stake in what they write.

I'm not Catholic so I don't have a dog in this fight. I just won't stand by while people make blatant false statements about others.

So what historian (without a religious stake in what he writes) claims that Emperor Constantine appointed the bishop of Rome?

Such powerful popes as Alexander III (r. 1159 – 81), Innocent III (r. 1198 – 1216), Gregory IX (r. 1227 – 41), and Innocent IV (r. 1243 – 54) wielded a primacy over the church that attempted to vindicate a jurisdictional supremacy over emperors and kings in temporal and spiritual affairs.
Papal supremacy - Wikipedia

Note the word "attempted" which I have bolded for your benefit. They did not succeed. Note also that this was after the schism, where Rome had separated herself from the ancient patriarchates of Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem and Constantinople. There was no recognition of Papal supremacy or infallibility by those patriarchates prior to the schism. Indeed popes had been condemned for heresy by the Church and another had been placed under arrest by the emperor prior to the schism.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

I'm not Catholic so I don't have a dog in this fight. I just won't stand by while people make blatant false statements about others.

So what historian (without a religious stake in what he writes) claims that Emperor Constantine appointed the bishop of Rome?

Note the word "attempted" which I have bolded for your benefit. They did not succeed. Note also that this was after the schism, where Rome had separated herself from the ancient patriarchates of Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem and Constantinople. There was no recognition of Papal supremacy or infallibility by those patriarchates prior to the schism. Indeed popes had been condemned for heresy by the Church and another had been placed under arrest by the emperor prior to the schism.

I did church history as part of my M.Div and the accounts of the succession of popes and their activities were in the accepted standard texts. All I am doing is stating what I learned during my studies, so you will have to accuse the majority of qualified church historians of deliberately lying. Also you will have to accuse Peter de Rosa, the Catholic historian of lying as well.

 

[Erik Nelson]

Hey Jonathan Hi all

Just a thought…

Not only does Paul correct Peter face to face in Gal.
He goes to The Council in Jerusalem
and appears face to face there.

Where he corrects them about circumcision and The Law.
Supposedly they agree with what he said, sending letters
to the churches supporting that view.

But those who came from James,
were those who got Peter into the face to face with Paul.

So, I don’t think they did.

I see the individual authority figure
and the council authority figure as being wrong.

Fortunately, we can trust Jesus to work all things for our good
including disputes about what is inerrant.

God bless
JP
View attachment 255361

Galatians controversy caused the Council (Acts 15), after which the issue had been resolved

 

[Erik Nelson]

God chose to write it in Greek, and I will hold fast to what is written aforementioned for our learning.

God's Word incarnate spoke Hebrew, and nicknamed Simon Peter as "Cephas".

It's the same word, the masculine suffix appropriate for Mr. Simon Cephas, does not change the meaning:

"You are Rocky, and upon this rock..."
"You are Craig, and upon this crag..."

Please realize your reasoning is circular -- the only reason the Greek masculine man's name "Petros" is not used anywhere else... is because it's a name...

only ever given to one masculine man person

It has no meaning on its own, it's just the name form of... "petra"

But, obviously, nobody ever pointed to a mountains craggy outcropping of bedrock and said, "hey, look at that Petros..."

instead, would've had to say, "look at the petra…"

We cannot say the masculine name form of a word, means anything other, than the word it comes from:

Rocky = rock
Craig = crag (mountainous rocky outcropping of bedrock)

Peter was never the first pope. There is no record in the writings of the church fathers that Peter was ever a bishop of Rome. In fact, all the references to Peter in the writings of the church father right through to Augustine never mention him as a bishop of anywhere.

Peter is remembered as the first Patriarch of Antioch & Rome by all Church Tradition

Note the word "attempted" which I have bolded for your benefit. They did not succeed. Note also that this was after the schism, where Rome had separated herself from the ancient patriarchates of Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem and Constantinople. There was no recognition of Papal supremacy or infallibility by those patriarchates prior to the schism. Indeed popes had been condemned for heresy by the Church and another had been placed under arrest by the emperor prior to the schism.

technically, opposition to X does not prove X is false

merely that some group doesn't like X

but "the world" doesn't like the Gospel...

so the Gospel is false ??

We cannot argue in circles, pre-assuming that eastern patriarchates are Rightly Guided, so that their opposition to Rome is Rightly Guided, so Roman primacy is wrong, "because" eastern patriarchates are right...

not logically valid

 

[Just_a_Christian]

Peter was never the first pope. There is no record in the writings of the church fathers that Peter was ever a bishop of Rome. In fact, all the references to Peter in the writings of the church father right through to Augustine never mention him as a bishop of anywhere.

Also, there could not have been any Apostolic succession from one pope to another, because church history shows that successive popes killed and deposed each other; other popes installed their teenage children (in spite of the celibacy requirement for priests), until another contender came along and rolled him.

Apostolic succession involves an Apostle laying hands on his successor, who lays hands on his successor and so on through the development of the church. In reality, although it might have happened in the first 300 years of the church, when Constantine came to be Emperor, he appointed the bishop of Rome being his choice. Apostolic succession was interrupted at this point and was never re-instituted.

At some stage, when the pope had total control over the whole church and over emperors, when he made a doctrinal statement, no one would withstand him because of the threat of excommunication and exclusion from all rights of society. It was at this point the pope issued a statement that Peter was the first pope, and that every other pope was instituted through Apostolic succession having the authority of Peter passed on from one pope to another. Of course, this was all a lie, and we can easily see that church history shows otherwise.

For 1000 years everyone in countries controlled by the Roman Catholic church obeyed whatever the pope said, on pain of excommunication, and in many case, death. When the pope instructed that Christians were not to marry Jews, anyone who disobeyed was severely punished. When the Pope issued a crusade against the non-Catholic Christians of Southern France, he was obeyed without question.

When Pope John Paul II visited countries dominated by the RCC in South America, he instructed that those in non-Catholic Christian groups were to be suppressed to preserve the "purity" of the Catholic faith. He was obeyed without question by those who burned Protestant churches and killed thousands of Protestant Christians. So this unquestioned obedience to the Pope in some countries is still the norm today.

I really don't know if you're attempting to tear me down or build me up.
In Him

 

[prodromos]

I did church history as part of my M.Div and the accounts of the succession of popes and their activities were in the accepted standard texts. All I am doing is stating what I learned during my studies, so you will have to accuse the majority of qualified church historians of deliberately lying. Also you will have to accuse Peter de Rosa, the Catholic historian of lying as well.

Then you should have no problem stating who it was that Emperor Constantine set up as pope of Rome and citing the relevant documents.

 

[prodromos]

technically, opposition to X does not prove X is false

merely that some group doesn't like X

'Some group' happens to be four out of five patriarchates, Rome being the fifth.

We cannot argue in circles, pre-assuming that eastern patriarchates are Rightly Guided, so that their opposition to Rome is Rightly Guided, so Roman primacy is wrong, "because" eastern patriarchates are right...

not logically valid

So you admit by this reasoning that your own argument is not logically valid. Plus you switched the goal posts. I was talking about Rome's claims regarding Papal Supremacy, not Rome's primacy.

 

[tulipbee]

This question is mainly to Catholics but anyone can answer with Scripture.

Do you believe in "papal infallibility"? That is to say, can the Pope ever sin or be in sin? Can he ever be wrong in His official teaching, views, actions, or beliefs? Since you believe Peter was the first Pope of the Church, do you know of a case in Scripture where this earthly leader of the universal church was in the wrong and had to be rebuked/corrected by someone else on earth?

Scriptures to read:
Galatians 2:11-21

first, I don't believe a bishop is over all bishop. if God made all his apostles have equal authority, then all bishops should have equal authority