Popes can err slightly but cannot profess formal heresy

[Michie]

An error held by some Catholics is that a pope cannot err, yet the Church has never taught such a thing. A pope indeed cannot profess or declare magisterial something that is a manifest error, but a pope can make slight, inadvertent mistakes or allow slight errors to creep into his speech. After all, popes are only human, they’re not infallible.



For instance, Pope Paul VI initially declared Vatican II to be the work of God, which he believed in the innocence of his heart, but he later recanted this by saying that Vatican II was the fissure through which Satan entered the Church (June 29, 1972). After 1970 Pope Paul had nothing good to say about Vatican II but rather lamented it.



Consider too that Pope John Paul II allowed the errant practice of receiving Communion in the hand, but deep down he disagreed with it even saying at one point: “I don’t want this practice.” (Fulda, Germany, November 1980)



Popes Prevented from Professing Heresy


Continued below.

Popes can err slightly but cannot profess formal heresy

David Martin | The Daily KnightAn error held by some Catholics is that a pope cannot err, yet the Church has never taught such a thing. A pope indeed cannot profess or declare magisterial something that is a manifest error, but a pope can make slight, inadvertent mistakes or allow slight errors...

www.knightsrepublic.com

 

[jamiec]

An error held by some Catholics is that a pope cannot err, yet the Church has never taught such a thing. A pope indeed cannot profess or declare magisterial something that is a manifest error, but a pope can make slight, inadvertent mistakes or allow slight errors to creep into his speech. After all, popes are only human, they’re not infallible.



For instance, Pope Paul VI initially declared Vatican II to be the work of God, which he believed in the innocence of his heart, but he later recanted this by saying that Vatican II was the fissure through which Satan entered the Church (June 29, 1972). After 1970 Pope Paul had nothing good to say about Vatican II but rather lamented it.



Consider too that Pope John Paul II allowed the errant practice of receiving Communion in the hand, but deep down he disagreed with it even saying at one point: “I don’t want this practice.” (Fulda, Germany, November 1980)



Popes Prevented from Professing Heresy


Continued below.

Popes can err slightly but cannot profess formal heresy

David Martin | The Daily KnightAn error held by some Catholics is that a pope cannot err, yet the Church has never taught such a thing. A pope indeed cannot profess or declare magisterial something that is a manifest error, but a pope can make slight, inadvertent mistakes or allow slight errors...

www.knightsrepublic.com

To say that Popes can't profess heresy is

(1) absurd
(2) unreasonable
(3) a denial of free will
(4) a denial of some incidents in Church history
(5) contrary to the New Testament; which shows St Peter not only denying Chrisr, but contradicting Him as well.

The fallibility of St Peter is heavily underlined in the NT, so it is a fortiori implausible that bishops who are neither Apostles nor Saints should be in all cases protected from professing heresy. There is just no good reason to entertain this claim, which seems to be nothing more than wishful thinking. If there can be a traitor Apostle, as one of them was, there is no reason to think there cannot ever possibly be traitor Popes.

 

[fide]

An error held by some Catholics is that a pope cannot err, yet the Church has never taught such a thing. A pope indeed cannot profess or declare magisterial something that is a manifest error, but a pope can make slight, inadvertent mistakes or allow slight errors to creep into his speech. After all, popes are only human, they’re not infallible.

For instance, Pope Paul VI initially declared Vatican II to be the work of God, which he believed in the innocence of his heart, but he later recanted this by saying that Vatican II was the fissure through which Satan entered the Church (June 29, 1972). After 1970 Pope Paul had nothing good to say about Vatican II but rather lamented it.

Consider too that Pope John Paul II allowed the errant practice of receiving Communion in the hand, but deep down he disagreed with it even saying at one point: “I don’t want this practice.” (Fulda, Germany, November 1980)

Popes Prevented from Professing Heresy

Continued below.

Popes can err slightly but cannot profess formal heresy

David Martin | The Daily KnightAn error held by some Catholics is that a pope cannot err, yet the Church has never taught such a thing. A pope indeed cannot profess or declare magisterial something that is a manifest error, but a pope can make slight, inadvertent mistakes or allow slight errors...

www.knightsrepublic.com

The link above to Paul VI's "lamented it"referring to Vat II, leads to the author's book on Amazon, Vatican II: The Launch into Apostasy: a historic new order is set in motion. The text describing the book includes this:

Careful reading of this book will help many to discern what must be done now in order to recover what has been lost."This unique and unprecedented book is bound to effectively ride the crest that has been generated by what many are calling the most turbulent pontificate of Church history—the end product of Vatican II. If given due publicity, it is certain to reverberate throughout Christendom and awaken many to the realization that "we have arrived at the end times." (Cardinal Raymond Burke, November 2017)

If this Vatican/papacy is inserting apostasy into the Church, as some now openly charge, then the two emphasized portions in the quote above are two options that diverge, it seems to me.
1) Ought (and can) we recover what has been lost?
OR:
2) we are at the end times - recovery is not a possibility.

I agree that delay of the end is good, allowing more time to prepare, but it does not seem that a whole lot of time is likely. Have we seen "abomination in the Holy Place" yet?

Mt 24:15 When therefore you shall see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place: he that readeth let him understand.
Mt 24:16 Then they that are in Judea, let them flee to the mountains:

Yes or No.

I'm hearing "they in Judea" referring to us in the Church; I'm hearing "flee to the mountains" mean "seek the spiritual heights of Carmel", the Mountain of Ascent, the path to Holiness. I'm hearing "Catholics, get serious about the call, now."

 

[mourningdove~]

If this Vatican/papacy is inserting apostasy into the Church, as some now openly charge, then the two emphasized portions in the quote above are two options that diverge, it seems to me.
1) Ought (and can) we recover what has been lost?
OR:
2) we are at the end times - recovery is not a possibility.

I agree that delay of the end is good, allowing more time to prepare, but it does not seem that a whole lot of time is likely. Have we seen "abomination in the Holy Place" yet?

Yes or No.

I'm hearing "they in Judea" referring to us in the Church; I'm hearing "flee to the mountains" mean "seek the spiritual heights of Carmel", the Mountain of Ascent, the path to Holiness. I'm hearing "Catholics, get serious about the call, now."

@fide

Can I ask you a question?

I hear some Catholics referring to a coming 'Great Chastisement', but not enough from them to understand what they are talking about.

Some Catholics even believe the Church is already experiencing this time of 'chastisement'.

What can you share with me about this period in history? Is it similar to what Protestants refer to as "The Tribulation'?

(I realize Catholic and Protestant interpretion of end time events differs, but it seems maybe there may be some 'overlap'?)

 

[RileyG]

To say that Popes can't profess heresy is

(1) absurd
(2) unreasonable
(3) a denial of free will
(4) a denial of some incidents in Church history
(5) contrary to the New Testament; which shows St Peter not only denying Chrisr, but contradicting Him as well.

The fallibility of St Peter is heavily underlined in the NT, so it is a fortiori implausible that bishops who are neither Apostles nor Saints should be in all cases protected from professing heresy. There is just no good reason to entertain this claim, which seems to be nothing more than wishful thinking. If there can be a traitor Apostle, as one of them was, there is no reason to think there cannot ever possibly be traitor Popes.

Do you know what papal infallibility means?

 

[fide]

@fide

Can I ask you a question?

I hear some Catholics referring to a coming 'Great Chastisement', but not enough from them to understand what they are talking about.

Some Catholics even believe the Church is already experiencing this time of 'chastisement'.

What can you share with me about this period in history? Is it similar to what Protestants refer to as "The Tribulation'?

(I realize Catholic and Protestant interpretion of end time events differs, but it seems maybe there may be some 'overlap'?)

I stopped trying to understand protestant theologies (including end-time theologies) some time ago, but I think you may be on to something. There can be one truth, but different theologies - different from Catholic - some trying to understand the same Scriptural passages, for example, in different lights or perspectives. Another significant example of this kind of confusion is the whole "born-again" event. There is one truth, but diverse ways to try to explain/describe/understand it both chronologically and spiritually. The whole situation is further confused because different understandings have differing errors mixed into their varying partially correct understandings. For me? I'm trying to simplify my life as much as possible by seeking to grow into the one correct revealed Truth.
The same external event can be for one a chastisement, for another a punishment, for another a warning, for another a meritorious carrying the cross of others in reparation for their sins.

 

[mourningdove~]

I stopped trying to understand protestant theologies (including end-time theologies) some time ago, but I think you may be on to something. There can be one truth, but different theologies - different from Catholic - some trying to understand the same Scriptural passages, for example, in different lights or perspectives. Another significant example of this kind of confusion is the whole "born-again" event. There is one truth, but diverse ways to try to explain/describe/understand it both chronologically and spiritually. The whole situation is further confused because different understandings have differing errors mixed into their varying partially correct understandings. For me? I'm trying to simplify my life as much as possible by seeking to grow into the one correct revealed Truth.
The same external event can be for one a chastisement, for another a punishment, for another a warning, for another a meritorious carrying the cross of others in reparation for their sins.

It was so easy in 'the old days'.

We were told the Catholic Church was the one true church, we were told what to do, and we did it.
It was so easy.

I miss those days, really. When religion was simple.

Nowadays, I think sometimes I know too much about too many things. And not enough about others. lol

I admire your steadfastnest, in focusing on the more simple, direct path.

And thank you for your response.