The pope's apology...

[OObi]

I heard a point brought up in a conversation I had that I completely looked over...

Just out of curiosity, how do Catholic's continue to say that the pope is infallible if he apologizes? An infallible person is never wrong, so why did he apologize? Not meant as an attack, just wondering.

 

[SolomonVII]

You know, I saw this point being raised by a Jewish commentary as well. It demonstrates a rather simple, and imperfect understanding of the admittedly very complicated doctrine of papal infallibility.

It would be a mistake to think that papal infallibility extends to everything that a pope says and does though. The doctrine of papal infallibility is complicated, and has more to do with the infallibility of the Holy Spirit guiding the pope in specific matters of Church dogma (behold the Comforter will guide you in all truth), rather than the intellectual works, and political maneuverings of any individual pope.

Be that as it may, what the pope regretted is that so many Moslems have become offended, especially based on their own misunderstanding of what they believed him to have said.

He has never actually stated that anything in his lecture to the German academia was in error. He just stated that the opinion about Moslems of the person he quoted in that speech should not be taken as his own opinion of Moslems.

 

[OObi]

The doctrine of papal infallibility is complicated, and has more to do with the infallibility of the Holy Spirit guiding the pope in specific matters of Church dogma (behold the Comforter will guide you in all truth), rather than the intellectual works, and political maneuverings of any individual pope.

Well then, wouldn't that apply to all believers as well? The Holy Spirit guides us and He is infallible, but no believer considers themselves infallible. So why should the pope?

 

[stray bullet]

Well then, wouldn't that apply to all believers as well? The Holy Spirit guides us and He is infallible, but no believer considers themselves infallible. So why should the pope?

because the pope is an apostle and we are not. We do not have the authority Christ gave him through succession of the apostles. If we were all lead infallibily by the Holy Spirit, we wouldn't need a bible. The apostles wouldn't have needed to guide the early Christians.

The pope isn't infallible. Just like the apostles, when it comes to matters of fatih and doctrine, he can declare something as infallible, as it came from the Holy Spirit.

He is by no means infallible as a person.

 

[ReformedChapin]

because the pope is an apostle and we are not. We do not have the authority Christ gave him through succession of the apostles. If we were all lead infallibily by the Holy Spirit, we wouldn't need a bible. The apostles wouldn't have needed to guide the early Christians.

The pope isn't infallible. Just like the apostles, when it comes to matters of fatih and doctrine, he can declare something as infallible, as it came from the Holy Spirit.

He is by no means infallible as a person.

When do you know something he states is infalliabel or whethere it's not? Popes in the past have made several mistakes in the past. And where in the scriptures does it say that the pope has apostleship?

 

[stray bullet]

When do you know something he states is infalliabel or whethere it's not? Popes in the past have made several mistakes in the past. And where in the scriptures does it say that the pope has apostleship?

because he is the successor of Peter the apostle. We know there are successors, even from the bible, which mentions Matthias (Acts 1:26).

Popes making a mistake is a sin. When the Pope speaks "Ex-Cathedra" (from the chair [of Peter]) it is an inspired statement, so it is infallible.

 

[ReformedChapin]

because he is the successor of Peter the apostle. We know there are successors, even from the bible, which mentions Matthias (Acts 1:26).

Popes making a mistake is a sin. When the Pope speaks "Ex-Cathedra" (from the chair [of Peter]) it is an inspired statement, so it is infallible.

Again, because apostolic succession was a selection from God, there is on evidence that the Pope was selected by Him nor that that roman catholic doctrine pf "ex cathedra" is correct since it's not scriptural.

There is also no evidence that apostolic succession is still occuring. It might just occured in the first church, and no transfered now since we all have the scriptures.

The pope has also not shown any of the signs of an apostle such as miracles or any indication that he is sent from God.

 

[stray bullet]

Again, because apostolic succession was a selection from God, there is on evidence that the Pope was selected by Him nor that that roman catholic doctrine pf "ex cathedra" is correct since it's not scriptural.

What is 'evidence'? The Church picked him, which is good enough for me. You may as well start questioning Paul.

There is also no evidence that apostolic succession is still occuring. It might just occured in the first church, and no transfered

Of course it is still occurring- anytime a bishop appoints another bishop, there is apostolic succession.

now since we all have the scriptures.

We have all the scriptures? How do you know? Most of the original writings of the apostles was written on paper that couldn't last more than 30 years. All that we have are the scriptures that were copied onto animals skins. In fact, show me a Gospel written in Aramaic, they are all gone now.

The pope has also not shown any of the signs of an apostle such as miracles or any indication that he is sent from God.

I think you need to better understand the role of bishops in the Church now and early on. They do not require miracles to be a bishop.

 

[Splayd]

Most outside of the Catholic church have no idea what Papal infallibility really means. I know I didn't. Like the OP I assumed it meant that the Pope was always right and saw plenty of historical evidence that clearly proved otherwise.

Since then I've come to understand that the actual doctrine isn't such a big deal really. Some Catholics might disagree with my simplistic take on it, but I hope it will clarify the matter for some others.

As I see it, Papal Infallibility is basically the recognition by the Catholic church that some things the Pope has said were infallible. That is to say that in hindsight and after reflection they have considered that a couple of things he said were inspired by the Holy Spirit. In truth - there's only been 2 times (recent Mary doctrines) they completely agree that this occured and while I disagree with their conclusion regarding those times, I'm not particularly offended by the notion that God can speak infallibly through people at times. After all - that's how we believe the bible was written, but we don't assume that every thing those people wrote or said outside of scripture was also infallible. It was with hindsight and reflection that councils agreed the books themselves were though.

 

[Metanoia02]

I heard a point brought up in a conversation I had that I completely looked over...

Just out of curiosity, how do Catholic's continue to say that the pope is infallible if he apologizes? An infallible person is never wrong, so why did he apologize? Not meant as an attack, just wondering.

Saying "I'm sorry" and "I am wrong" are two different things. He has only apologized if people were offended, not that he was wrong in the words he spoke.

 

[PaulAckermann]

I do not believe the Pope apologized, but even if he did, it does not nullify his infallibility.

The Bible itself gives a clear example of how the Bible works.

But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision. 13 The rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy. 14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, "If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?

Galations 2:11 - 14


Both Catholics and Protestants agree that Peter was infallble. Catholics believe he infallible because he was the first pope. Protestants believe he was infallible because he was an apostle. No matter. Both see this passage as being problematic. How can Peter be infallible while being rebuked for doing something wrong?

As a Protestant, I never heard an explanation that satisfied me. Only when I became a Catholic did it all make sense. It fits with the Catholic Church's teaching that the Pope is only infallible when he speaks ex cathredra.

Peter was not speaking officially, in fact, he did not speak at all. He withdrew from the Gentiles. Paul was not critical of his teachings but his action. Paul condemn for not living up to his own teaching. Infallibilty only relates to the official teaching. Peter was wrong in his actions, but still infallible.

In the same way, Pope Benedict could apologize for an action he did, or for saying something unofficially that is wrong.

But still saying this, the Pope had noting to apologize about. His classroom lecture was about intolerance. He quoted from an emperor in the Middle Ages about how evile the Muslims were. He was endorsing the quote from the emperor. He was using the quote from the emperor as an example if intolerance.

But that being said, I do believe that the Pope made a mistake. In fact, two. He underestimated the media and he underestimated Islam. He mistakenly thought that he could quote from someone he obviously disagrees with, without being taken out of context. He did not realize that the media is ready to pounce on any sentence that could be take out of context. He did not realize that there are many Muslims who want to take something the Pope says out of context as a pretext for more violence. He needs to be more careful, realizing that there are enemies ready to pounce on anything he says. But this does not effect his infallibiity, this just means he is a little naive about how the real world operates.

 

[supernova165]

When you say infallible, are you saying that when they teach something from the holy spirit, they can't be wrong?

 

[PassthePeace1]

I heard a point brought up in a conversation I had that I completely looked over...

Just out of curiosity, how do Catholic's continue to say that the pope is infallible if he apologizes? An infallible person is never wrong, so why did he apologize? Not meant as an attack, just wondering.

First of all...the Pope did not apologize for what he said, he apologized for the reactions to his comments, that were misunderstood. Big difference.

Second, the reason that Catholic's continue to say that the pope is infallible, is because of we have an understanding what the dogma of Papal infalliblity is and what it is not.

As other's have stated papal infalliblity does not mean that a pope is above personal sin...it mean when "speaks ex cathedra...that is to say, when he speaks ex cathedra from the Chair of Peter, then it is infallible. Speaking from the Chair of Peter doesn't mean, he has to literally be seating in the chair, it represents the office.

This also doesn't mean, that everytime the Pope opens his mouth, that what comes out is infallible. Certian criterias must be met.

For a teaching to be ex cathedra infallible, it must meet the following criteria:
1. The pope must indicate that he is teaching from the chair (Chair of St. Peter). That is he must be exercising his office as pastor of all Christians by virtue of his supreme authority that was granted to St. Peter by Jesus.
2. The teaching must be about faith and morals.
3. The pope must define a doctrine to be held by all Catholics.

Peace be with you...Pam

 

[CaDan]

I heard a point brought up in a conversation I had that I completely looked over...

Just out of curiosity, how do Catholic's continue to say that the pope is infallible if he apologizes? An infallible person is never wrong, so why did he apologize? Not meant as an attack, just wondering.

'Cause he wasn't wearing his infallible hat at the time. Duh!

 

[thereselittleflower]

The Pope is NOT personally infallible.

The idea that he is is NOT Catholic teaching.

The Catholic teaching of the infalliblity of the Pope has nothing to do with anything he said regarding the muslims.

It ONLY has to do with a charism of the Holy Spirit, a 'gift", that is exercised ONLY in rare occasions when the need arises and ONLY to protect the deposit of faith given the Church by the Apostles.

It has nothing to do with his person. He is NOT personally infallible.


It has everything to do with the Charism that goes with the OFFICE he occupies as I shared above.


Peace

 

[Tonks]

It had nothing to do with faith or morals and thus cannot be infallible by definition.

 

[BreadAlone]

because the pope is an apostle

I guess that would depend on what your deminition of an apostle is........

 

[thereselittleflower]

I guess that would depend on what your deminition of an apostle is........

And so were you ordained by the laying on of hands in direct line of succession from the Apostles to be qualified to tell us who is and is not an apostle?



Peace

 

[stray bullet]

I guess that would depend on what your deminition of an apostle is........

Someone who has received the authority Christ gave the original twelve.

 

[Isidore_AK]

Someone who has received the authority Christ gave the original twelve.

So then, Paul is not an apostle, because he is not one of the twelve.

He's not even the one they chose to replace Judas. He's the 13th...

Thats a logical conclusion to your statement. Either the apostles could (and DID) pass on their authority, or they could NOT and All you Prot's who seem to love Paul so very much are following the words of a fallible, non-apostolic man.

Which is it?