The Cadaver Synod

[secondeve]

The Cadaver Synod is something I've only learned about recently, and which has made me exremely curious about the nature of papal infalability. It was ruled sometime (I think) in the past few centuries that the Pope was considered infallable - that is, speaking directly as God's conduit - when judging spiritual matters. Despite being a relatively new idea in the history of the papacy, the logic is believed to hold for all popes, not just subsequent ones. The important thing here is the definition of spiritual matters - you can have a Pope that is corrupt in the ways of the world, and sinful as all mankind is sinful, but when making holy pronouncements, he is held to be infallable.

But (you knew there had to be one) the Cadaver Synod is highly problematic in this instance, because it involves an instance where one Pope - the good, well-liked Pope Formosus - was tried in synod after his death by the subsequent Pope, who ruled - in a spiritual capacity - that everything Formosus had done while Pope was invalid due to a technicality (which, it should be added, just as legitimately applied to the accusing Pope). He declared (amongst other things) that anyone ordained by Formosus hadn't been ordained, which in turn meant anyone ordained by them was invalidated in turn, and so on. Now, this ruling was overturned by the next Pope, but that overturning was then revoked again by his successor, which means, ultimately, that the ruling about Formosus has never been overturned. The Catholic Church, to date, has never moved to rectify the ruling - presumably, because of what it means for the idea of papal infalability.

Because if Formosus was wrong, and his accusing Pope was right, then a Pope made incorrect judgements in a spiritual capacity - but if Formosus was right and the accusing Pope was wrong, then a Pope has still made incorrect judgements in a spiritual capacity, which would seem to put paid to the question of infallability.

What do people think about this, and how do they think it affects the idea of papal infalability?

[AnotherTraveler]

Well, if they could be wrong, which they can't, then it would be a problem, but since they are all right, even if they are wrong they are right, then where is the problem?

However, if instead you have hit on the very head a nail that no Catholic wants you to notice, and certainly they don't want you to hit it, then I suspect that the light of day will not shine on this dark corner for long.

I use a simple rule in observing stupid doctrines. If they are stupid, then God did not make the doctrine, and it is not found in the bible. This one is a classic.

Peter was rebuked by Paul in his later years. Does that sound like infallability?

[Fiosh]

Hi secondeve,

The doctrine of papal infallibility doesn't say that Popes do not make mistakes. They do. They also sin.

Papal infallibility is a very limited charism of the Holy Spirit which ensures that a Pope will not err when teaching the faithful on doctrines of faith and morals.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

"The Vatican Council has defined as "a divinely revealed dogma" that "the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra -- that is, when in the exercise of his office as pastor and teacher of all Christians he defines, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the whole Church -- is, by reason of the Divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer wished His Church to be endowed in defining doctrines of faith and morals; and consequently that such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of their own nature (ex sese) and not by reason of the Church's consent" (Densinger no. 1839 -- old no. 1680). For the correct understanding of this definition it is to be noted that:

what is claimed for the pope is infallibility merely, not impeccability or inspiration (see above under I).

the infallibility claimed for the pope is the same in its nature, scope, and extent as that which the Church as a whole possesses; his ex cathedra teaching does not have to be ratified by the Church's in order to be infallible.

infallibility is not attributed to every doctrinal act of the pope, but only to his ex cathedra teaching; and the conditions required for ex cathedra teaching are mentioned in the Vatican decree:

The pontiff must teach in his public and official capacity as pastor and doctor of all Christians, not merely in his private capacity as a theologian, preacher or allocutionist, nor in his capacity as a temporal prince or as a mere ordinary of the Diocese of Rome. It must be clear that he speaks as spiritual head of the Church universal.

Then it is only when, in this capacity, he teaches some doctrine of faith or morals that he is infallible (see below, IV).

Further it must be sufficiently evident that he intends to teach with all the fullness and finality of his supreme Apostolic authority, in other words that he wishes to determine some point of doctrine in an absolutely final and irrevocable way, or to define it in the technical sense (see DEFINITION). These are well-recognized formulas by means of which the defining intention may be manifested.

Finally for an ex cathedra decision it must be clear that the pope intends to bind the whole Church. To demand internal assent from all the faithful to his teaching under pain of incurring spiritual shipwreck (naufragium fidei) according to the expression used by Pius IX in defining the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin. Theoretically, this intention might be made sufficiently clear in a papal decision which is addressed only to a particular Church; but in present day conditions, when it is so easy to communicate with the most distant parts of the earth and to secure a literally universal promulgation of papal acts, the presumption is that unless the pope formally addresses the whole Church in the recognized official way, he does not intend his doctrinal teaching to be held by all the faithful as ex cathedra and infallible. "

The beautiful thing about the gift of infallibility is that despite the nonsense of men, the Holy Spirit protects His truth through the ages.

God bless,

Fiosh

[MorningGlory]

The Cadaver Synod is something I've only learned about recently, and which has made me exremely curious about the nature of papal infalability. It was ruled sometime (I think) in the past few centuries that the Pope was considered infallable - that is, speaking directly as God's conduit - when judging spiritual matters. Despite being a relatively new idea in the history of the papacy, the logic is believed to hold for all popes, not just subsequent ones. The important thing here is the definition of spiritual matters - you can have a Pope that is corrupt in the ways of the world, and sinful as all mankind is sinful, but when making holy pronouncements, he is held to be infallable.

But (you knew there had to be one) the Cadaver Synod is highly problematic in this instance, because it involves an instance where one Pope - the good, well-liked Pope Formosus - was tried in synod after his death by the subsequent Pope, who ruled - in a spiritual capacity - that everything Formosus had done while Pope was invalid due to a technicality (which, it should be added, just as legitimately applied to the accusing Pope). He declared (amongst other things) that anyone ordained by Formosus hadn't been ordained, which in turn meant anyone ordained by them was invalidated in turn, and so on. Now, this ruling was overturned by the next Pope, but that overturning was then revoked again by his successor, which means, ultimately, that the ruling about Formosus has never been overturned. The Catholic Church, to date, has never moved to rectify the ruling - presumably, because of what it means for the idea of papal infalability.

Because if Formosus was wrong, and his accusing Pope was right, then a Pope made incorrect judgements in a spiritual capacity - but if Formosus was right and the accusing Pope was wrong, then a Pope has still made incorrect judgements in a spiritual capacity, which would seem to put paid to the question of infallability.

What do people think about this, and how do they think it affects the idea of papal infalability?

The Pope, past or present, it just a man; he is not infallible. One only has to look at the history of the Catholic church to see how true this is.

[Leonard]

I don't believe in Papal Infallability, but when we discuss it, it is VERY important to understand what it means.

In order for any Papal pronouncement to be considered infallable by the Roman Church, it MUST be on 'matters of faith and morals,' and it must be made 'ex cathedra.'

This has only been done 4 or 5 times in the entire history of the Roman Church, so it's not like Rome believes every "...er....ah..." or burp of a Pontiff if infallable.

[Fiosh]

Well, if they could be wrong, which they can't, then it would be a problem, but since they are all right, even if they are wrong they are right, then where is the problem?

However, if instead you have hit on the very head a nail that no Catholic wants you to notice, and certainly they don't want you to hit it, then I suspect that the light of day will not shine on this dark corner for long.

I use a simple rule in observing stupid doctrines. If they are stupid, then God did not make the doctrine, and it is not found in the bible. This one is a classic.

Peter was rebuked by Paul in his later years. Does that sound like infallability?

You've actually explained the NEED for a doctrine of infallibility for the Church.

Whether you believe that it is granted to the Pope, or to the Church in some other way, it must exist for the Truth to be carried without perversion thru the ages.

Personal interpretation and formulation of doctrine does not work. It has resulted in the division and fragmentation we see today.

With the charism of infallibility, even though evil and stupid men may gain power and authority in the Church, the Holy Spirit will not allow them to corrupt the doctrine.

Peace,

Fiosh

[EricH]

Well, if they could be wrong, which they can't, then it would be a problem, but since they are all right, even if they are wrong they are right, then where is the problem?

However, if instead you have hit on the very head a nail that no Catholic wants you to notice, and certainly they don't want you to hit it, then I suspect that the light of day will not shine on this dark corner for long.

I use a simple rule in observing stupid doctrines. If they are stupid, then God did not make the doctrine, and it is not found in the bible. This one is a classic.

Peter was rebuked by Paul in his later years. Does that sound like infallability?

You've actually explained the NEED for a doctrine of infallibility for the Church.

Whether you believe that it is granted to the Pope, or to the Church in some other way, it must exist for the Truth to be carried without perversion thru the ages.

Personal interpretation and formulation of doctrine does not work. It has resulted in the division and fragmentation we see today.

With the charism of infallibility, even though evil and stupid men may gain power and authority in the Church, the Holy Spirit will not allow them to corrupt the doctrine.

Peace,

Fiosh

This would be a NEED, only if that was the only way truth could be preserved (through a human agency). But there are several other ways God could choose (and I believe did acccording to scripture) to ensure that His truth is maintained.

Arguing from need (or result) is actually a form of arguing according to consequence. This says that something must be true because if it wasn't, something bad would happen (or the consequences would be undesirable).

However, there are several ways God could (and I think did) choose to preserve truth. Since there are numerous possible ways He could have chosen to do so, need is not sufficient to prove that one way is superior over others. There must be other proofs brought to bear to determine which is thwe way God has chosen to preserve truth.

Personal interpretation is not the only method that has resulted in error, division and schism. Those who believe that truth resides in their heirarchy (whether it be an organization or an individual) must apply that logic consistently. Your logic is that because individuals have made errors in judgement, individual interpretation cannot be a viable guide. Then using that same logic, because all institutions have made errors in judgement, none can be arbiters of the truth.

That is the weakness of arguing from result. If applied consistently, it rules out everything

[Kansasdad]

Well, if they could be wrong, which they can't, then it would be a problem, but since they are all right, even if they are wrong they are right, then where is the problem?

However, if instead you have hit on the very head a nail that no Catholic wants you to notice, and certainly they don't want you to hit it, then I suspect that the light of day will not shine on this dark corner for long.

I use a simple rule in observing stupid doctrines. If they are stupid, then God did not make the doctrine, and it is not found in the bible. This one is a classic.

Peter was rebuked by Paul in his later years. Does that sound like infallability?

You've actually explained the NEED for a doctrine of infallibility for the Church.

Whether you believe that it is granted to the Pope, or to the Church in some other way, it must exist for the Truth to be carried without perversion thru the ages.

Personal interpretation and formulation of doctrine does not work. It has resulted in the division and fragmentation we see today.

With the charism of infallibility, even though evil and stupid men may gain power and authority in the Church, the Holy Spirit will not allow them to corrupt the doctrine.

Peace,

Fiosh

This would be a NEED, only if that was the only way truth could be preserved (through a human agency). But there are several other ways God could choose (and I believe did acccording to scripture) to ensure that His truth is maintained.

Arguing from need (or result) is actually a form of arguing according to consequence. This says that something must be true because if it wasn't, something bad would happen (or the consequences would be undesirable).

However, there are several ways God could (and I think did) choose to preserve truth. Since there are numerous possible ways He could have chosen to do so, need is not sufficient to prove that one way is superior over others. There must be other proofs brought to bear to determine which is thwe way God has chosen to preserve truth.

Personal interpretation is not the only method that has resulted in error, division and schism. Those who believe that truth resides in their heirarchy (whether it be an organization or an individual) must apply that logic consistently. Your logic is that because individuals have made errors in judgement, individual interpretation cannot be a viable guide. Then using that same logic, because all institutions have made errors in judgement, none can be arbiters of the truth.

That is the weakness of arguing from result. If applied consistently, it rules out everything

Except that the argument from consequence shows that when speeking in this capasity the Pope through out the ages has never made an error. Therefore in this capasity history does bear out the arbiter of truth.

[jc49]

Shalom everybody.....

JESUS,who was GOD and is GOD didnt make NO POPE EVER.....

THE POPE is an invention of man.....

So why talking about THE POPE?

I mean,with all respect and love to my catholic brothers and sisters...THE POPE is a fairy tale....

Peter WAS NOT THE FIRST POPE....there has NEVER been a POPE or PAPACY institued by JESUS...so what are we talking about?

The HOLY SPIRIT is THE VICARY of CHRIST,no a pope or the pope VICARIUS CHRISTI SANCTUS SPIRIT EST!!!!

I mean we might as well talk about PINOCCHIO in this board or SNOWHITHE and the SEVEN DWARFS.....just like talking about a "fictious" subject...MICKEY MOUSE and DONALD DUCK are MORE REAL than THE POPE...

When,I mean,WHEN? will christian understand that JESUS said that we are all brothers and sisters and that there ONLY ONE FATHER,THE HEAVENLY ONE?

ALL WE NEED IS JESUS and HIS HOLY SPIRIT and HIS WORD...no popes and statues and candles and all that paraphernalia connected to ORGANIZED RELIGION...

I could quote scriptures till there is not tomorrow but I get really really discouraged when I see that after 2007 years of the gospel we are still stuck in this sciencefiction stuff that is organized religion...

You want THE POPE? Have it.....I find JESUS MUCH MORE ATTRACTIVE...HE IS INFALLIBLE ,nobody else is.

THank you very much...

Blessing in JESUS

[rtwo]

Well, if they could be wrong, which they can't, then it would be a problem, but since they are all right, even if they are wrong they are right, then where is the problem?

However, if instead you have hit on the very head a nail that no Catholic wants you to notice, and certainly they don't want you to hit it, then I suspect that the light of day will not shine on this dark corner for long.

I use a simple rule in observing stupid doctrines. If they are stupid, then God did not make the doctrine, and it is not found in the bible. This one is a classic.

Peter was rebuked by Paul in his later years. Does that sound like infallability?

You've actually explained the NEED for a doctrine of infallibility for the Church.

Whether you believe that it is granted to the Pope, or to the Church in some other way, it must exist for the Truth to be carried without perversion thru the ages.

Personal interpretation and formulation of doctrine does not work. It has resulted in the division and fragmentation we see today.

With the charism of infallibility, even though evil and stupid men may gain power and authority in the Church, the Holy Spirit will not allow them to corrupt the doctrine.

Peace,

Fiosh

This would be a NEED, only if that was the only way truth could be preserved (through a human agency). But there are several other ways God could choose (and I believe did acccording to scripture) to ensure that His truth is maintained.

Arguing from need (or result) is actually a form of arguing according to consequence. This says that something must be true because if it wasn't, something bad would happen (or the consequences would be undesirable).

However, there are several ways God could (and I think did) choose to preserve truth. Since there are numerous possible ways He could have chosen to do so, need is not sufficient to prove that one way is superior over others. There must be other proofs brought to bear to determine which is thwe way God has chosen to preserve truth.

Personal interpretation is not the only method that has resulted in error, division and schism. Those who believe that truth resides in their heirarchy (whether it be an organization or an individual) must apply that logic consistently. Your logic is that because individuals have made errors in judgement, individual interpretation cannot be a viable guide. Then using that same logic, because all institutions have made errors in judgement, none can be arbiters of the truth.

That is the weakness of arguing from result. If applied consistently, it rules out everything

Except that the argument from consequence shows that when speeking in this capasity the Pope through out the ages has never made an error. Therefore in this capasity history does bear out the arbiter of truth.

If you ignore the inquisition, the crusades, and the fact that the pope seems to change his mind regarding certain "eternal" truths every few hundred years or so.