Papal Infallibility.

[catlover]

I believe this view is flawed. It is only when The Pope sits in a special throne and makes a statement that he is infallible...
somehow, I think this is putting the pope above God.

Anyway, I have had about 5 threads picking on Evanglicals and one picking on Anabaptists so I figured I would start a thread about Roman Catholics.

Equal opportunity.

 

[Wisdom's Child]

Oh dear.....
I will get the mop bucket, this one will get messy.
Let the wailing and gnashing of teeth begin.

(you really didn't have to go there.....did you?)

 

[JAL]

I believe this view is flawed. It is only when The Pope sits in a special throne and makes a statement that he is infallible...
somehow, I think this is putting the pope above God.

I wouldn't go so far as to say it's putting him above God, but certainly I disagree with Catholic epistemology. The whole notion of papal infallibility is to guard the church from human error. But if the rest of us are always fallible, we can' be sure who the true "pope" is if there is one, in the first place. This makes God's papal plan self-defeating (espistemologically speaking). Since God would not, in my view, base His church on a self-defeating epistemology, papal ecclesiology cannot be His intended schema.

 

[catlover]

Oh dear.....
I will get the mop bucket, this one will get messy.
Let the wailing and gnashing of teeth begin.

(you really didn't have to go there.....did you?)

Come on.. .it's equal opportunity. If I picked on the pacifists, Anabaptists, I have to pick on everyone!

 

[catlover]

The whole notion of papal infallibility is to guard the church from human error. But if the rest of us are always fallible, we can' be sure who the true "pope" is if there is one, in the first place.

Good point...

 

[Borealis]

I wouldn't go so far as to say it's putting him above God, but certainly I disagree with Catholic epistemology. The whole notion of papal infallibility is to guard the church from human error. But if the rest of us are always fallible, we can' be sure who the true "pope" is if there is one, in the first place. This makes God's papal plan self-defeating (espistemologically speaking). Since God would not, in my view, base His church on a self-defeating epistemology, papal ecclesiology cannot be His intended schema.

Of course we know who the true Pope is. There's an unbroken line of succession from Peter all the way to Pope Benedict XVI. Those not in that line are pretenders. The Bishops in council choose the next Pope, guided by God and the Holy Spirit. There's no 'inheriting' the position, as if it were a monarchy.

If you reject the notion of papal infallibility, then you're rejecting the infallibility of the canon of the Bible, because both came from the same Church. Oh, wait...you already did that, didn't you? You're also rejecting the infallibility of the doctrine of the Trinity. That's a Catholic teaching, brought out by the same Church that kept the Bible alive for over a thousand years before the invention of the printing press.

 

[Borealis]

I believe this view is flawed. It is only when The Pope sits in a special throne and makes a statement that he is infallible...
somehow, I think this is putting the pope above God.

Anyway, I have had about 5 threads picking on Evanglicals and one picking on Anabaptists so I figured I would start a thread about Roman Catholics.

Equal opportunity.

How exactly does papal infallibility put the Pope above God when the Pope gets his marching orders from God, and God makes sure that the Pope is speaking true doctrine? God is infallible in everything he does; the Pope is only infallible under specific conditions, and always at the direction of God.

 

[GraceLikeRainFallsDown]

Of course we know who the true Pope is. There's an unbroken line of succession from Peter all the way to Pope Benedict XVI. Those not in that line are pretenders. The Bishops in council choose the next Pope, guided by God and the Holy Spirit. There's no 'inheriting' the position, as if it were a monarchy.

You do not inherit the position, but it only takes a 2/3 majority vote to become Pope. I have never understood this. It seems that if a man was to be Pope (Vicar of Christ, leader of all Christians on Earth) and it was from God, it would be unanimous. And, it often takes multiple votes before coming up with a 2/3 majority.

If God was talking to all the Cardinal's to guide them, wouldn't he guide them to the same guy the first time they voted?

 

[icedtea]

Those of us who don't agree with the Pope's authority are not under it, so no problem.

 

[catlover]

How exactly does papal infallibility put the Pope above God when the Pope gets his marching orders from God, and God makes sure that the Pope is speaking true doctrine? God is infallible in everything he does; the Pope is only infallible under specific conditions, and always at the direction of God.

The pope is elected by Cardinals, so exactly does the pope get his marching order from God?


I understand the point about under specific conditions, he has to sit on the throne.

 

[icedtea]

Maybe they are from God, too. Its like Lds; only they have the correct authority. I disagree, of course and no worse for it.

 

[QuantaCura]

Note: the following is not a defense of the doctrine, but an explanation of what it means to Catholics. You'll probably still disagree with the truth of the doctrine, but now at least you'll know what to actually disagree with:

First off, "Ex cathedra" or "from the chair" is a figure of speech--it doesn't mean he has to literally sit on a special chair. It is a figure of speech that means he is exercisng his authoirty over the whole Church (which is what the phrase "chair of Peter" is sumbolic of; like the Jewish phrase "chair of Moses").

We as Catholics believe the Church will never lose the Truth. So any teaching that must be held by the entire Church must be faithful to the original deposit of faith delivered by the Apostles. Throughout history, doctrinal disputes have arisen. To settle those disputes, the Church will issue a definitve proclamation to be held by the entire Church as to what the Truth is on the matter. If the definitions were false, the truth will have been lost.

Since the Successor of St. Peter has the special ministry from God to make such definitive judgments (to confirm the brethren in the faith), his proclamations that are to be held by the entire Church are infallible. Even the definitions of ecumenical councils cannot be binding on the entire Church without his approval.

Infallibility is not inspiration--the Pope doesn't get new revelation from God like the LDS folks. he also doesn't automatically get the correct answer or the best way to explain it .in his head What it does mean is that the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth who preserves the Truth in the Church, does not allow Him to definitvely bind the entire Church to a false doctrine.

Rather than exalting the Pope above God, the doctrine of Papal infallibility asserts God's sovereignty over the pope.

 

[icedtea]

I have heard that before. Thanks for a good explanation. Some think that means he can never be wrong, but it only means he cannot lead the church in error when he speaks of doctrine.

 

[Borealis]

You do not inherit the position, but it only takes a 2/3 majority vote to become Pope. I have never understood this. It seems that if a man was to be Pope (Vicar of Christ, leader of all Christians on Earth) and it was from God, it would be unanimous. And, it often takes multiple votes before coming up with a 2/3 majority.

If God was talking to all the Cardinal's to guide them, wouldn't he guide them to the same guy the first time they voted?

They don't always listen. They are human, after all. God won't let them choose the wrong shepherd, not as a group.

 

[Borealis]

The pope is elected by Cardinals, so exactly does the pope get his marching order from God?

The cardinals elect him, they don't order him around. The Pope is not the President of the Catholic Church; he does God's bidding, not the laity's bidding. Otherwise, North American Catholics might very well have gotten the ban on ABC lifted, and divorce might be a sacrament.

 

[Borealis]

I have heard that before. Thanks for a good explanation. Some think that means he can never be wrong, but it only means he cannot lead the church in error when he speaks of doctrine.

Correct. Note that traditions (small 'T') and customs CAN be changed, such as the fasting on Fridays, the form of the liturgy (the essence cannot change, but the prayers can), even priestly celibacy. These are not doctrines of the Church, and are subject to the needs of the Church in the present time. Apostolic Tradition doesn't change, ever, and no Pope has the authority to change it. If he tried, he would be revealed as a false Pope.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I wouldn't go so far as to say it's putting him above God, but certainly I disagree with Catholic epistemology. The whole notion of papal infallibility is to guard the church from human error.

What it does is insure that the RCC will always be correct in it's own determination, but it does nothing to insure that it is correct.

Clearly, if self declares self as infallible (and thus unaccountable) and if self declares self as the sole interpreter of Scirpture and the teachings of self, and if self declares self as the sole arbiter for all things self chooses to so arbitrate, and if self declares self as the sole teaching authority, then self will regard self as infallible and without error. I see no other product of that process. But, does that insure that self is correct? I think not.


My perspective.


Pax!


- Josiah

 

[catlover]

Note: the following is not a defense of the doctrine, but an explanation of what it means to Catholics. You'll probably still disagree with the truth of the doctrine, but now at least you'll know what to actually disagree with:

First off, "Ex cathedra" or "from the chair" is a figure of speech--it doesn't mean he has to literally sit on a special chair. It is a figure of speech that means he is exercisng his authoirty over the whole Church (which is what the phrase "chair of Peter" is sumbolic of).

We as Catholics believe the Church will never lose the Truth. So any teaching that must be held by the entire Church must be faithful to the original deposit of faith delivered by the Apostles. Throughout history, doctrinal disputes have arisen. To settle those disputes, the Church will issue a definitve proclamation to be held by the entire Church as to what the Truth is on the matter. If the definitions were false, the truth will have been lost.

Since the Successor of St. Peter has the special ministry from God to make such definitive judgments (to confirm the brethren in the faith), his proclamations that are to be held by the entire Church are infallible. Even the definitions of ecumenical councils cannot be binding on the entire Church without his approval.

Infallibility is not inspiration--the Pope doesn't get new revelation from God like the LDS folks. he also doesn't automatically get the correct answer or the best way to explain it .in his head What it does mean is that the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth who preserves the Truth in the Church, does not allow Him to definitvely bind the entire Church to a false doctrine.

Rather than exalting the Pope above God, the doctrine of Papal infallibility asserts God's sovereignty over the pope.

I refuse to argue with people who have good taste in art!

 

[TheListener]

Whatever reasoning one uses to disregard the popes authority can be applied exactly to the Bible as well.

 

[INRI2]

Rather than exalting the Pope above God, the doctrine of Papal infallibility asserts God's sovereignty over the pope.

This is exactly true, it is by Gods power, by the power of the Holy Spirit not by the power of the Pope that when he speaks ex cathedra what he determines is protected from error.

"Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, whatever you loosen on earth sall be loosened in heaven"

What it does is insure that the RCC will always be correct in it's own determination, but it does nothing to insure that it is correct.

That is true too...but we leave that protection up to Christ because we have faith in Christ and his promise.

The Doctrine insures that we will always be correct according to our own opinion but it is Christ himself who assures us it is correct in Gods determining.