Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

Once Infallible always Infallible????

29 posts in this topic

Posted · Report post

Grace to you,

I have a sincere question.

Let me preface it;

It is said, in the Romish Church and Doctrine, that once a Roman Catholic Pope is confirmed a Pope that he becomes Infallible.

There's a alot of headlines concerning Pope Benedict retiring which hasn't happened in ages. With it comes alot of questions and concerns. Two Popes in St. Peter's, What does a retired Pope do, etc. etc. etc.?

My question is this concerning the Romish Doctrine of Infallibilty.

It's stated in a headline I just read that the Pope is no longer infallible because he now defers to the new infallible Pope.

How can one lose Infallibility once it's inferred? Is it an office thing?

Peace,

Dave

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I'd say that's a very good question. I would presume that this has a lot to do with the idea that God's grace is upon the Pope more than a "mere human." The basic idea that God's Spirit resides in him, more fully than it apparently did before that. But in the long run it has a great deal to do with credibility. Le's say the Pope says something crazy, like saying gay marriage is okay, then theoretically speaking he would be "infallible" as he is the one who is charged by God to oversee the church. What he says must be of God. After the office is removed, God would no longer be speaking through him, therefore fallible.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I'd say that's a very good question. I would presume that this has a lot to do with the idea that God's grace is upon the Pope more than a "mere human." The basic idea that God's Spirit resides in him, more fully than it apparently did before that. But in the long run it has a great deal to do with credibility. Le's say the Pope says something crazy, like saying gay marriage is okay, then theoretically speaking he would be "infallible" as he is the one who is charged by God to oversee the church. What he says must be of God. After the office is removed, God would no longer be speaking through him, therefore fallible.

Good answer.

Can you flesh that out with scriptural backing?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I'd say that's a very good question. I would presume that this has a lot to do with the idea that God's grace is upon the Pope more than a "mere human." The basic idea that God's Spirit resides in him, more fully than it apparently did before that. But in the long run it has a great deal to do with credibility. Le's say the Pope says something crazy, like saying gay marriage is okay, then theoretically speaking he would be "infallible" as he is the one who is charged by God to oversee the church. What he says must be of God. After the office is removed, God would no longer be speaking through him, therefore fallible....

Good answer.

Can you flesh that out with scriptural backing?

For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance. Romans 11:29

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

It is said, in the Romish Church and Doctrine, that once a Roman Catholic Pope is confirmed a Pope that he becomes Infallible.

1 John 1

8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Can I back that up with Scripture? Nope lol The Bible clearly says that God is not a respector of persons, and that His Spirit does not depart. You can swing your theology in many ways but the truth of the matter is, the authorities in Scripture were held to a standard of accountability too. And if Peter was the first Pope, look how much he screwed up.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Joe gave a good one for that actually, didn't think of that one. However it is nonetheless unbiblical that any man could ever be infallible. Jeremiah 17:9 "The heart is deceitful above all thing, and desperately wicked; who can know it?" The Pope's heart is deceitful "infallible" or not.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Can I back that up with Scripture? Nope lol The Bible clearly says that God is not a respector of persons, and that His Spirit does not depart. You can swing your theology in many ways but the truth of the matter is, the authorities in Scripture were held to a standard of accountability too. And if Peter was the first Pope, look how much he screwed up.

Awesome!

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Let God be true and every man a liar.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

"Infallible" Popes have been correcting the doctrines of other "infallible" Popes since the beginning of the so-called "office."

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

"Infallible" Popes have been correcting the doctrines of other "infallible" Popes since the beginning of the so-called "office."

Yes, that's true. Pope Pious XII really gave the RCC a headache given his support for Hitler and his opposition of a national homeland for the Jews in their biblical homeland.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Grace to you,

I have a sincere question.

Let me preface it;

It is said, in the Romish Church and Doctrine, that once a Roman Catholic Pope is confirmed a Pope that he becomes Infallible.

There's a alot of headlines concerning Pope Benedict retiring which hasn't happened in ages. With it comes alot of questions and concerns. Two Popes in St. Peter's, What does a retired Pope do, etc. etc. etc.?

My question is this concerning the Romish Doctrine of Infallibilty.

It's stated in a headline I just read that the Pope is no longer infallible because he now defers to the new infallible Pope.

How can one lose Infallibility once it's inferred? Is it an office thing?

Peace,

Dave

I am not a Catholic, and I do not believe the pope to be infallible. But I do believe that I can explain the Catholic doctrine on this issue.

The pope is considered to be infallible only when he teaches ex cathedra. (meaning "from the chair"). There are a number of conditions that must be fulfilled in order for this to be the case (the teaching must be public; the teaching must apply to doctrine; the pope must intend for the teaching to carry apolistic authority; the pope must intend to bind the whole church by his teaching). Because of all the conditions, "infallible" teaching is very rare. And because of the conditions, infallible teaching can only be done by a current pope.

So to be clear, infallibility does not mean that a pope is without sin. It also doesn't mean that a pope can't contradict another pope or make a mistake. Pope's are free to sin or err all they want without violating the doctrine of papal infallibility. The only thing that can't be done is to make a mistake while teaching ex cathedra. This is because when the pope speaks ex cathedra, he is thought to speak with the authority of the Catholic Church itself, which (from a Catholic perspective) is the authority of Christ himself. This is what supposedly makes the teaching infallible. So without the ability to teach with that authority, there is no chance to teach infallibly.

Short version: According to Catholic dogma, Benedict can no longer teach ex cahtedra, meaning he can no longer issue infallible statements.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Infallibility rests entirely with the Lord God.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Pope Pious XII really gave the RCC a headache given his support for Hitler and his opposition of a national homeland for the Jews in their biblical homeland.

As horrid as this is, I don't think it is actually in contradiction to the Catholic dogma of papal infallibility considering this support wasn't a matter of doctrine.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Pope Pious XII really gave the RCC a headache given his support for Hitler and his opposition of a national homeland for the Jews in their biblical homeland.

As horrid as this is, I don't think it is actually in contradiction to the Catholic dogma of papal infallibility considering this support wasn't a matter of doctrine.

Do a web search. There is plenty of documentation of Popes correcting/denouncing so called "infallible" pronouncements by other Popes.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Pope Pious XII really gave the RCC a headache given his support for Hitler and his opposition of a national homeland for the Jews in their biblical homeland.

As horrid as this is, I don't think it is actually in contradiction to the Catholic dogma of papal infallibility considering this support wasn't a matter of doctrine.

Do a web search. There is plenty of documentation of Popes correcting/denouncing so called "infallible" pronouncements by other Popes.

Sorry, but that's simply not true. Popes have only spoken ex cathedra a very, very few times. If memory serves it is only 4.... To have 'plenty of documentation' would indicate that these ex cathedra proclaimations were done with startling regularity.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I have been intrigued with the current situation for some time now particularly after the Vatican scandal broke and have come to understand that the Pope is nothing more than a figure head. Others make the decisions and I suppose he abides by them. So the fallibility/infallibility of his pronouncements or decisions or just his choice as to what to do from the time he gets up is no more than yours or mine. However to the Catholic, he is holy (so are we) he speaks words from God (so do we - the Bible) yet he sins( as do we )and since Mary said she needed a Saviour (so does he and so do we) unless he asks Jesus to forgive his sin he is hell bound (as are we). In essence he is no different than we are!! A sinner who must be saved by the grace of the living God.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Sorry, but that's simply not true. Popes have only spoken ex cathedra a very, very few times. If memory serves it is only 4.... To have 'plenty of documentation' would indicate that these ex cathedra proclaimations were done with startling regularity.

Precisely! Catholic dogma simply does not claim that popes are infallible in everything they do or say. This is a myth.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Do a web search. There is plenty of documentation of Popes correcting/denouncing so called "infallible" pronouncements by other Popes.

I searched, but found nothing credible. Could you perhaps provide me with an illustration?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Oh, and to further define the limits of the doctrne of infallibility, the Pope is regarded as infallible ONLY on matters of faith and morals. And again, ONLY when he specifically declares he is speaking ex cathedra.....

PS: I DO NOT BELIEVE IN PAPAL INFALLIBILITY!

Pope John Paul II urged the Bishops to "move" infallibility to "where it has always resided" in the Bishops meeting in ecumenical council. And he said they ought to include the non Roman Bishops, as long as they have legitimate Apostolic Succession.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

The idea that a pope could be infallible is proof of mans fallibility.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

The idea that a pope could be infallible is proof of mans fallibility.

I'm not sure I understand your point here. Are you saying that it isn't possible for God to allow a human to teach infallibly?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

What Im saying is that the mere idea of a pope being infallible proves the fallibility of man.

We cant magically make someone infallible because we give them the title of pope and if that were the case then we should all be made pope so the world will be without fallibility.

Im being fascetious with the last sentence but seriously theres no warrant in the Bible for a man to claim he is infallible. God says weve all fallen short of His glory and He is infallible ipso facto were all fallible.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

What Im saying is that the mere idea of a pope being infallible proves the fallibility of man.

We cant magically make someone infallible because we give them the title of pope and if that were the case then we should all be made pope so the world will be without fallibility.

Im being fascetious with the last sentence but seriously theres no warrant in the Bible for a man to claim he is infallible. God says weve all fallen short of His glory and He is infallible ipso facto were all fallible.

I don't agree with the dogma of papal infallibility, but I think your reasoning could be dangerous. If man can never claim the teaching of man to be the infallible teachings of God, then how do we justify calling the Bible infallible? Is this not a case of God allowing men to write infallibly?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

What Im saying is that the mere idea of a pope being infallible proves the fallibility of man.

We cant magically make someone infallible because we give them the title of pope and if that were the case then we should all be made pope so the world will be without fallibility.

Im being fascetious with the last sentence but seriously theres no warrant in the Bible for a man to claim he is infallible. God says weve all fallen short of His glory and He is infallible ipso facto were all fallible.

I don't agree with the dogma of papal infallibility, but I think your reasoning could be dangerous. If man can never claim the teaching of man to be the infallible teachings of God, then how do we justify calling the Bible infallible? Is this not a case of God allowing men to write infallibly?

I dont call the Bible infallible. The Bible has been written and rewritten countless times its a mess of contradictions between the copies.

Neither you nor I have read the original texts all we have are the translations and there are differences in all of them simply because words have multiple meanings and cultural idioms dont translate well.

That doesnt mean the Bible isnt true its just the oldest book still in print and subject to mans fallibility which our language also suffers from.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0