Posted on 05/23/2008 1:07:20 PM PDT by AnalogReigns
"It is beyond question that he [the pope] can err even in matters touching the faith. He does this when he teaches heresy by his own judgment or decretal. In truth, many Roman Pontiffs were heretics." --Pope Adrian VI, 1523 (last non-Italian pope before John Paul II)
The question to thoughtful Roman Catholics: Clearly Pope Adrian was speaking about faith and morals. Was his statement authoritative, or heretical?
Regarding papal infallibility the current-day Roman Catholic Church says:
"The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful -- who confirms his brethren in the faith -- he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals" (Catechism of the Catholic Church (Liguori, MO: Liguori Publications), 1994, p.235).
Also, Vatican Council II declared the following about papal infallibility (all bold emphasis is our own):
"The infallibility, however, with which the divine redeemer wished to endow his Church in defining doctrine pertaining to faith and morals, is co-extensive with the deposit of revelation, which must be religiously guarded and loyally and courageously expounded. The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful -- who confirms his brethren in the faith (cf. Lk. 22:32) -- he proclaims in an absolute decision a doctrine pertaining to faith and morals" (Vol. 1, p.380).
"We believe in the infallibility enjoyed by the Successor of Peter when he speaks ex cathedra as shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, an infallibility which the whole Episcopate also enjoys when it exercises with him the supreme magisterium" (Vol. 2, p.392).
"This loyal submission of the will and intellect must be given, in a special way, to the authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, even when he does not speak ex cathedra in such wise, indeed, that his supreme teaching authority be acknowledged with respect, and that one sincerely adhere to decisions made by him conformably with his manifest mind and intention ..." (Vol. 1, p.379).
"There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which no one at all can be saved" (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.)
"We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff" (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.)
"[The Holy Roman Church] firmly believes, professes and teaches that none of those who are not within the Catholic Church, not only Pagans, but Jews, heretics and schismatics, can ever be partakers of eternal life, but are to go into the eternal fire 'prepared for the devil, and his angels' (Mt. xxv. 41), unless before the close of their lives they shall have entered into that Church; also that the unity of the Ecclesiastical body is such that the Church's Sacraments avail only those abiding in that Church, and that fasts, almsdeeds, and other works of piety which play their part in the Christian combat are in her alone productive of eternal rewards; moreover, that no one, no matter what alms he may have given, not even if he were to shed his blood for Christ's sake, can be saved unless he abide in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church." (Mansi, Concilia, xxxi, 1739.) (Pope Eugene IV, The Bull Cantate Domino, 1441).
"The Church's relationship with the Muslims. 'The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day' " (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1994, p.223).
QUESTION: If Muslims can be saved on the basis of professing to hold to the faith of Abraham, why can't the Jews? (See aforementioned ex cathedra statement from 1441.) Did God change His mind sometime after 1441?
The Creed of the Council of Trent (1564) summarizes the doctrines which Catholics are to believe. Regarding the Pope, it states (all emphasis is our own):
"... I unhesitatingly accept and profess all the doctrines (especially those concerning the primacy of the Roman Pontiff and his infallible teaching authority) handed down, defined, and explained by the sacred canons and ecumenical councils and especially those of this most holy Council of Trent (and by the ecumenical Vatican Council). And at the same time I condemn, reject, and anathematize everything that is contrary to those propositions, and all heresies without exception that have been condemned, rejected, and anathematized by the Church. I, N., promise, vow, and swear that, with God's help, I shall most constantly hold and profess this true Catholic faith, outside which no one can be saved and which I now freely profess and truly hold. With the help of God, I shall profess it whole and unblemished to my dying breath; and, to the best of my ability, I shall see to it that my subjects or those entrusted to me by virtue of my office hold it, teach it, and preach it. So help me God and his holy Gospel" (emphasis not in original). [The words in parentheses in this paragraph were inserted into the Tridentine profession of faith by order of Pope Pius IX in a decree issued by the Holy Office, January 20, 1877 (Acta Sanctae Sedis, X [1877], pp. 71 ff.).]
---------------------------------------------------------------
INFALLIBLE HERETICS?
"It is beyond question that he [the pope] can err even in matters touching the faith. He does this when he teaches heresy by his own judgment or decretal. In truth, many Roman Pontiffs were heretics." --Pope Adrian VI, 1523
The great importance of the papacy warrants yet further investigation as to its legitimacy. Vital is the claim that the popes are infallible when they speak on morals and dogma to the entire Church. If they are not infallible, the Roman Catholic Church has lost its unique leadership and apostolic authority. Yet popes themselves (Adrian VI quoted above and others) have denied that they or any other popes were infallible. Why not believe them?
Pope Adrian VI's declaration goes even further. If many popes have been heretics, then we have another reason why there cannot be an unbroken line of "apostolic succession back to Peter." Besides proving that a person is not infallible, espousing heresy is a mortal sin in Roman Catholic theology. Its immediate consequence, so says the official Roman Catholic Code of Canon Law (a codification of the canons and decrees of the Church is instant and automatic excommunication (James A. Coriden, Thomas J. Green, Donald E. Heintschel, eds., The Code of Canon Law, Paulist Press, 1985, Canon 1364, p. 920). A heretic has denied the faith and placed himself outside the Church.
A heretical pope is therefore no longer even a member of the Church, much less its head. Consequently, a heretic, though pope, could not possibly provide a channel of apostolic authority to a successor. Yet the list of popes contains numerous heretics who were denounced as such by councils and by other popes.
No wonder the theories of apostolic succession and papal infallibility were not proposed until many centuries after Peter's death! It was as the popes grasped after more power, and began to command monarchs and entire nations, that they needed to justify their arrogant and oppressive imperialism. Already they claimed to be "God on earth" and the vicars of Christ, but that was not enough. They necessarily began to assert infallibility as well.
THE ROOTS OF INFALLIBILITY
Kings and emperors had once claimed to be gods, but their luster faded as they fought among themselves and their subjects began to chafe for more freedom. What was needed was an infallible representation of deity on earth to whom the civil rulers could look to settle their disputes. The popes began to fill that need, and by the thirteenth century they had established themselves as the supreme authorities all across Europe. A leading nineteenth-century Catholic historian wrote that this authoritarianism encouraged despotism:
"...the Catholic Church [developed] an hostile and suspicious attitude towards the principles of political, intellectual, and religious freedom and independence of judgment ... [so that the] ideal of the Church [became] an universal empire ... of force and oppression, where the spiritual suppressing every movement it dislikes.
"... we could not, therefore, avoid bringing forward ... a very dark side of the history of the Papacy" (J.H. Kgnaz von Dollinger, The Pope and the Council, London, 1869, pp. xv, xvii).
Much of the "dark side of the history of the Papacy" involving that "empire of force and oppression" resulted from the popes' claim to infallibility. People eagerly embraced the idea in spite of the popes’ wickedness. After all, the pagan gods stole one another's wives and lived riotously, so why not the popes? But the idea that a pope could be thought infallible even while blatantly contradicting himself was remarkable. Yet that fraud was maintained.
Such was the case, for example, when Pope Clement XI (1700-21) confirmed King Philip V of Spain and then shortly thereafter King Charles III of Germany, both with the same titles and privileges, including the highly prized Bull of the Crusade. As a result, Charles went to war with Philip to claim the crown which the pope seemingly had given him. Clement even confirmed two different candidates, one proposed by each sovereign, for the same bishopric.
One would think that such blatant contradictions would be proof enough that the pope was not infallible. Yet the bishops arguing the case for Charles III, according to a contemporary observer, "did allege the Pope's infallibility, and that every Christian is obliged in conscience to follow the last declaration of the Pope, and blindly to obey it, without inquiring into the reasons that did move the Pope to it" (D. Antonio Gavin, A MasterKey to Popery, 3rd ed., London, 1773, pp. 113-14). Such is the illogical and unbiblical but absolute and infallible papal authority which has long been claimed by the popes and which became official Roman Catholic dogma at Vatican I. That Council was coerced by Pius IX (1846-78) even to make submission to the pope a requirement of salvation:
If anyone therefore shall say that blessed Peter the Apostle was not appointed the prince of all the apostles and the visible head of the whole church militant or that the same directly and immediately received from our Lord Jesus Christ a primacy of honor only and not of true and proper jurisdiction [over the whole church], let him be anathema [excommunicated and thus be damned]!
Nearly 300 years earlier, in 1591, the Jesuit Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, whose loyalty to the pope was absolute, had declared that whatever the Roman Pontiff commanded must be believed and obeyed no matter how evil or ludicrous. Of course, he could show neither biblical, logical, not traditional support for such an extreme view, a view which did away with the individual moral accountability to God so clearly taught in Scripture and recognized in every conscience.
Peter Olivi, a Franciscan priest, made one of the earliest attempts to establish papal infallibility. His motive was primarily selfish. Pope Nicholas III (1277-80) had favored the Franciscans by declaring that "communal renunciation of property was a possible way to salvation" (August Bernhard Hasler, How the Pope Became Infallible, Doubleday & Co., Inc., 1981, p. 36). [Roman Catholicism had long taught salvation by works, as it teaches even today.]
Desiring to make the pope's decision in favor of himself and his fellow Franciscans unassailable, Olivi proposed that such papal pronouncements were infallible. A pope could live the most wicked life, murdering rivals, plundering cities, massacring their inhabitants (as many popes did), and denying Christ daily in abominable deeds. Yet if and when he made a pronouncement to the Church on faith and morals he would be under the guidance of the Holy Spirit to such an extent that whatever he said would be infallible.
Olivi's astonishing proposal was a radical departure from Church tradition. Until then few popes had dared to look upon themselves as infallible, though the temptation to the human ego to embrace such folly is especially great for those who are so highly revered and venerated. Catholic theologian Hans Kung writes:
"With regards to the origin of the Roman Doctrine of infallibility: ... [it] did not slowly `develop' or `unfold,' but rather was created in one stroke in the late 1200s [by] an eccentric Franciscan, Peter Olivi (d.1298), repeatedly accused of heresy. At first no one took Olivi's notion seriously. ... The medieval canonists ... had never claimed that the Church needed an infallible head to preserve its faith. ... [And] the modern critical attack on the principles of infallibility has the backing of Scripture and the body of Catholic tradition" (Hasler, How the Pope Became Infallible, from the introduction by Hans Kung, p. 9).
"A WORK OF THE DEVIL"
Olivi's theory was soon denounced by a pontiff, who would take awful vengeance upon the Franciscans. Pope John XXII (1316-34) had his own selfish reasons for denying papal infallibility. Had the Franciscans not been the champions of it, John might have accepted the idea as useful for his own purposes. However, he hated the Franciscans for taking vows of poverty that condemned his own lavish lifestyle. He had amassed a huge fortune "by duping the poor, by selling livings, indulgences and dispensations" (De Rosa, op. cit., p. 180). Angrily, John XXII condemned as heresy both the Franciscan way of life and Nicholas III's commendation thereof.
To justify contradicting another pope, John produced his Bull Qui quorundam (1324), a dogmatic assertion of doctrine made to the entire Church and thus infallible by today's rules. In it John XXII reviled the doctrine of papal infallibility as "the work of the devil."
Though often offered as an example of the consummate heretic, John XXII continued in the "holy office" for 18 wicked years, and his name remains today unashamedly displayed on the Vatican's official list of the vicars of Christ. This pope is described by one Catholic historian as "full of avarice, more worldly than a pimp, and with a laugh that crackled with unimprovable malice" (Ibid., p. 212). Yet he is an essential link in the alleged apostolic succession back to Peter upon which John Paul II's legitimacy depends today.
PAPAL HERETICS'S HERETIC
John XXII's predecessor, Clement V, had given away all of the Church's wealth to his relatives, leaving a bare treasury. That condition the new pope went about to cure with a vengeance. He sold everything for a price, including absolution from sin and eternal salvation. Thus the golden chalice held by the woman riding the beast was refilled with filthy lucre gained by abominable means exactly as the apostle John foresaw in his remarkable vision.
John XXII published a list of crimes and gross sins, together with the individual price for which he, as vicar of Christ, head of the one true Church, would absolve transgressors from each of them. The list left nothing out, from murder and piracy to incest, adultery, and sodomy. The wealthiest one was, the more one could sin; the more Catholics sinned, the richer the Church became.
Much of the wealth thus acquired was spent to further John XXII's passion for wars. One of his contemporaries wrote: "The blood he shed would have incarnadined [reddened] the waters of Lake Constance [an extremely large lake], and the bodies of the slain would have bridged it from shore to shore (Ibid.).
John XXII's pet doctrine was like that of many who are popular on Christian radio and TV today: that Christ and His apostles had been men of great wealth. So he declared in a papal bull, Cum inter nonnullos (1323). To deny this dogma was heresy punishable by death. John demanded that secular rulers burn at the stake Franciscans who had taken vows of poverty. Those who refused to do so were excommunicated. During his pontificate he handed over 114 Franciscans to the Inquisition to be consumed by the flames for the heresy of purposely living in poverty as Christ had. Thus it became official Roman Catholic dogma that Christ and His disciples were men of considerable wealth, and that all Christians ought to be so--a dogma repudiated by other popes.
Such papal heretics and their condemnation of one another are part of the history of the popes, a history which Catholics must honestly face. And Protestants as well, those who admire John Paul II, must realize that the position he holds and the special authority he claims come to him through a long line of criminals and heretics whom he and his Church still honor as past vicars of Christ.
THE HOLY HERETIC
Millions of Catholics from whom the historical truth has been hidden have looked upon John XXII as an exceptionally holy man. Was he not favored above all popes by "Our Lady of Mount Carmel" with one of her rare personal appearances? John swore that the "Virgin Mary" appeared to him to present the Great Promise: that she would personally go into purgatory the Saturday after their death and take to heaven all those who, having met certain other conditions, died wearing her brown scapular. In reliance upon this special Sabbatine [Saturday] Privilege, which was confirmed by others, untold millions of Roman Catholics have since worn (and still wear today) the brown scapular of "Our Lady of Mount Carmel" as their ticket to heaven. John XXII was eventually denounced as a heretic by Emperor Louis of Bavaria, who deposed him and appointed another pope in his place. But the emperor's purging of the papacy turned embarrassing when, shortly after the new pope took office, his wife appeared on the scene. The emperor quickly decided that John XXII wasn't so bad after all. For, as de Rosa sarcastically remarks, although John, like most of the other popes, had illegitimate children, at least he "had never committed the sin of matrimony." Such sarcasm, though it comes from a Catholic historian, may seem unfair at first but is in fact fully warranted. Today's Code of Canon Law 1394, refers to marriage as a "scandal" for a priest, whereas it has no such harsh words for sins of which priests are frequently guilty even today, such as child molestation, keeping a mistress, homosexuality, etc.
Reinstated as pope, John XXII's heretical pronouncements became so outrageous that only his death saved him from removal again from the papacy. Yet he remains on that long list of alleged successors of Peter through whom Pope John Paul II received his authority.
In 896 Stephen VII (896-7) had the corpse of the previous Pope Formosus (891-6) exhumed eight months after burial. Dressed in its former papal vestments and propped on a throne in the council chamber, the cadaver was "tried" and found guilty of having crowned as emperor one of Charlemagne's many illegitimate descendants. In fact, there have been a number of popes who were thus illicit claimants to the alleged throne of Peter and therefore hardly capable of passing on to their successions apostolic authority.
Having been condemned by Pope Stephen VII, the former Pope Formosa's corpse was stripped, the three fingers of benediction on the right hand were hacked off, and the remains thrown to the mob outside, who dragged it through the streets and threw it into the Tiber. Fishermen gave it a descent burial. Pope Stephen VII then declared all of Formosus's ordinations invalid, creating a most serious problem which haunts the Roman Catholic Church to this day.
Formosus had ordained many priests and bishops, who in turned ordained multitudes of others, who also did the same. Thus an open and insoluble question remains concerning which priests, bishops, et al, down to the present time may be in the line of those ordained by Formosus and are therefore without genuine apostolic authority. And what of those who were ordained by the many other heretical popes? And what of the fact that Formosus, too, remains on the official Vatican list of vicars of Christ, as does the pope who exhumed his body and denounced him posthumously?
Pope Sergius III agreed with Stephen VII in pronouncing all ordinations by heretical popes invalid--which, of course, is only logical in view of the automatic excommunication which we have already noted accompanies heresy. In Cum ex Apostolatus officio, Pope Paul VI declared "by the plenitude of papal power" that all of the acts of heretical popes were null and void. That infallible declaration leaves "apostolic succession" in ruins.
COUNCILS ABOVE POPES
A former unscrupulous Roman official, Vigilius, as pope (537-55), became an even more tragic figure. He changed his mind on doctrine each time the emperor demanded it. Vigilius was finally declared a heretic and excommunicated by the Fifth General Council (553), called at Constantinople by the Emperor Justinian. (No one doubted that a council's authority was above that of a pope.)
Exiled by the emperor, Vigilius confessed his errors and pleaded that he had been deceived by the devil. Yet the reign of this man on Peter's alleged throne was among the longest of any of the popes. More than one pope was condemned as a heretic by a Church council. The Council of Constance (1414-18] deposed three popes who each claimed to be the one true vicar of Christ and had each "excommunicated" the other two.
Pope Honorius (625-38) was condemned as a heretic by the Sixth Ecumenical council 678-87). For centuries each new pope taking office was required to swear by an oath that Honorius had been a heretic and that the council had acted properly in condemning him. Yet he too remained on the official list of Peter's successors!
The action of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, affirmed by subsequent popes, was considered proof for centuries that popes were not infallible. Yet a strong-willed despot, Pope Pius IX, through threats and manipulation, would engineer an affirmation of papal infallibility by the First Vatican Council in 1870.
CONTRADICTIONS, CONTRADICTIONS
Two persons holding opposite opinions can't both be right. Yet popes have almost made a business of contradicting one another on key issues. Agapetus (535-6) burned the anathema which Bonface II (530-2) had solemnly issued against Dioscorus (530). The later is shown as an antipope, but Agapetus, who sided with him, is shown as a true pope. Adrian II (867-72) said civil marriages were valid; Pius VII (1800-23) declared them invalid. Both men are shown as legitimate popes. Nicholas V (1447-55) voided all of Eugenius IV's (1431-47) "documents, processes, decrees, and censures against the Council [of Basle]. ... to be regarded as having never existed" (Dollinger, op. cit., p. 275), yet both remain on the official list of popes today.
On July 21, 1773, Pope Clement XIV issued a decree suppressing the Jesuits, only to have it reversed by a decree restoring them, issued by Pope Pius VII on August 7, 1814. Eugenius IV condemned Joan of Arch (1412-31) to be burned as a witch and heretic, but she was beatified by Pius X (1903-14) in 1909 and canonized by Benedict XV (1914-22) in 1920. Today inside Paris's Cathedral of Notre Dame, one of the most popular images is that of Saint Joan of Arc, France's "natural heroine," with a profusion of candles always burning before it. How could an "infallible pope" condemn a saint to death as a witch? Yet Eugene IV remains on the list of allegedly infallible "successors of Peter."
History conclusively denies both apostolic succession and papal infallibility. And in fact many popes denied the latter also, among them Vigilius (537-55), Clement IV (1265-8), Gregory XI (1370-8), Adrian VI (1522-3), Paul IV (1555-9) and even Innocent III (1198-1216), who ruled Europe with an iron hand. Then why was Pope Pius IX so determined to immortalize this obvious fraud as official dogma?
There was a very special reason: Infallibility was the final desperate prop which Pius IX hoped would support the collapsing structure of Roman Catholic domination over the governments of the world and their citizens. To establish that dogma once for all, he convened the First Vatican Council December 8, 1869.
[The previous study, Infallible Heretics?, is chapter 9 of A Woman Rides the Beast, by Dave Hunt, Harvest House Publishers, Eugene, Oregon 97402, 1994]
-----------------------------------------
It's beyond me how all the "authoritative" statements--even on one subject like papal authority (given in the first part of the posting) can ever be understood or applied coherently or consistently. The only authority I can see here is one of self-contradiction--especially in light of the history of various popes who taught (yes in faith and morals) what was was later known as heresy.
Not endorsing Dave Hunt here, by the way....as I don't know what all else he has written.
And I apologize about the formatting of the first part... Trying to master that HTML conversion thing....
Please try and keep the debate civil. NO PERSONAL ATTACKS AND NO NAME CALLING, PLEASE!!!
Bump for later.
Like..... many Protestants have faith in the bible and use verses of scripture as talismans, tokens, or totems in lieu of faith in Jesus.. and are blind to that process as well..
There are many snares to trap the believer AWAY from a direct faith in Jesus.. You know.. snares, traps, SHeep Pens.. (John ch 10)..
ALL of us are heretical at times. We’re human and we really don’t know a whole lot about God or about the mysteries surrounding Him (Trinity, for one). To claim a man is infallible puts him on a level with God, IMHO. No one is infallible.
...I seem to remember Martin Luther coming up with something along those lines.
From the Catholic teaching standpoint, the pope can not teach heresy. He (and we) are protected from the possibility by the Lord’s promise that whatever Peter binds or looses on earth, will likewise be done so in Heaven - and that the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church (Matthew 16:18-21); and that the Lord “confirmed” Peter’s faith, that it would not fail.
So, it seems certain a pope cannot fall into formal heresy - to willfully, openly renounce or deny an article of faith. A pope, as a private theologian, may be in error that might be considered material heresy. He may be a bad pope, a sinner, etc. He may be negligent in his duties, etc., but will not fall into formal heresy.
With regard to Hunt, he is - with all due respect - an idiot. His hodge podge of papal errors are gross misrepresentations of events that they occur. It will be a long thread if we care to go through them one by one. A few examples, he says pope Eugenius IV condemned Joan of Arc. That is simply not true.
Further, there is no evidence that Pope Adrian said the quote attributed to him by Hunt. I believe Dollinger is Hunt’s source; but Dollinger himself does not cite it. If he ever said, it was not as pope.
I'm curious if there will be any intelligent response that is pro-Popery. I know some can cherry pick comments from the early church fathers that support the Popery, but this is just damning.
please ping to the GRPL LIST...
Because you say so?
If the quotes and examples stated above are incorrect or misleading, then I regret that I took them serious. However, from what I've found myself, there is some truth contained above.
I understand that--but when you look back at the history of the idea of infallibility of the pope, the verses you mentioned were used as proof texts--that is looking back into the bible for support of something you already teach, not the way the Church or the popes always saw it (compared to say a doctrine like the holy Trinity).
So, it seems certain a pope cannot fall into formal heresy - to willfully, openly renounce or deny an article of faith. A pope, as a private theologian, may be in error that might be considered material heresy. He may be a bad pope, a sinner, etc. He may be negligent in his duties, etc., but will not fall into formal heresy.
This is what seems so ridiculous to me and practically any other non-Roman Catholic. So who determines when a pope is a private theologian or not? Why he does, of course! And then the next pope, when he disagrees can just call the previous pope acting in the place of a private theologian?
Dave Hunt may well be wrong on several attributions above, but is his history of the various medieval popes just made up hogwash? The only historic sources we have about stories of these pre-Reformation popes are Roman Catholic ones! Roman Catholic historians too acknowlege there were some seriously bad apples in the papacy at that time too--Hunt is not writing fiction about them. And those same popes made what was known at the time as "infallible teachings" about faith and morals which were soon proven to be very fallible. And the quotes I placed above Hunt, they are the real thing....with citations, and yet, they too seem to clearly contradict each other on several points. Yet all are equally authoritative, and infallible?
The vast majority of Christians would agree with the common biblical sense of Marysecretary above--no one, but our Lord and Savior alone, is infallible--no matter what his office.
I can say this too, the great majority of Roman Catholics I’ve talked with too know, instinctively, that even the Pope is not infallible....
Not Dollinger for the Adrian VI quote, here’s the full version:
“If by the Roman Church you mean its head or pontiff, it is beyond question that he can err even in matters touching the faith. He does this when he teaches heresy by his own judgement or decretal. In truth, many Roman pontiffs were heretics. The last of them was Pope John XXII († 1334).” (Quaest. in IV Sent.; quoted in Viollet, Papal Infallibility and the Syllabus, 1908).*
(* According to the 1907 Catholic Encyclopedia, this work was published in 1512 from the notes of his student and without his supervision, but as it saw “many editions” it would appear that the pope did not repudiate the passage as not his own, in a work attributed to him.)
I'm no great fan of Dave Hunt. He'd written a couple of end-times books about the New Age Movement in the early 80s, but his chief claim to fame was the The God Makers, a book and film series on Mormonism. I was uneasy with the vitriolic rhetoric and sloppy research found in it. I found it odd that, given the commercial success of The God-Makers, his follow-up projects didn't go after the Jehovah's Witnesses or another high-profile non-Christian organization. Instead, he directed his sights increasingly on fellow Christians with the books The Seduction of Christianity, Beyond Seduction, Whatever Happened To Heaven?, and most recently What Love Is This?. Each book alienated more and more of his prior readership, and saw smaller and smaller sales numbers as a result.
It's always worthwhile to point out that Hunt has no formal theological/historical/seminary education whatsoever. His day job, the last I'd heard was as a certified public accountant. If he's as careless with the facts and figures in his client's books as he is with his own, he'd lose his day job. You're not missing anything IMO.
If one honestly looks at history, they will find that some of the Popes have been absolutely criminal.
I have noticed that people with control issues operate as if they were infallible.. The slightest critic will set them off.. People that "need" someone to be infallible(Pope, pastor, priest, clergy) may have the same problem.,. Controlling and being controlled by others..
Quote: “Was his statement authoritative, or heretical?”
Neither. He was expressing a personal opinion about popes teaching their own opinions. No mention was made of any authoritative teachings for the whole Church at all.
Problem solved.
N - E - X - T ?
Aaah! Dave Hunt’s books. Food for the hearth.
-Theo
The value of this discussion, it seems to me, is to make those who participate in these threads rethink their almost knee-jerk reaction thinking EVERYTHING the magisterium says is infallible. It isn't and the Church does not teach such.
Which also means that when a bishop is wrong the priests have an obligation to challenge and possibly not obey. They are not children. The Church is a human organization capable of human mistakes and human organizational stupidity. Some ( parents) want to consider the priests as if they were children who must obey their parents.
The sooner we stop acting like parents and children, the better for the Church. IMHO.
Are you a book burner?..
Mystery religions always have a magisterium.. none of which are worthy of respect.. but suspicion.. The bible say TEST the spirits.. You know the spirits demanding divine authority..
Vatican II’s Explanation
Vatican II explained the doctrine of infallibility as follows: "Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they can nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly. This is so, even when they are dispersed around the world, provided that while maintaining the bond of unity among themselves and with Peter’s successor, and while teaching authentically on a matter of faith or morals, they concur in a single viewpoint as the one which must be held conclusively. This authority is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church. Their definitions must then be adhered to with the submission of faith" (Lumen Gentium 25).
Infallibility belongs in a special way to the pope as head of the bishops (Matt. 16:17–19; John 21:15–17). As Vatican II remarked, it is a charism the pope "enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith (Luke 22:32), he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals. Therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly held irreformable, for they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, an assistance promised to him in blessed Peter."
The infallibility of the pope is not a doctrine that suddenly appeared in Church teaching; rather, it is a doctrine which was implicit in the early Church. It is only our understanding of infallibility which has developed and been more clearly understood over time. In fact, the doctrine of infallibility is implicit in these Petrine texts: John 21:15–17 ("Feed my sheep . . . "), Luke 22:32 ("I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail"), and Matthew 16:18 ("You are Peter . . . ").
Based on Christ’s Mandate
Christ instructed the Church to preach everything he taught (Matt. 28:19–20) and promised the protection of the Holy Spirit to "guide you into all the truth" (John 16:13). That mandate and that promise guarantee the Church will never fall away from his teachings (Matt. 16:18, 1 Tim. 3:15), even if individual Catholics might.
As Christians began to more clearly understand the teaching authority of the Church and of the primacy of the pope, they developed a clearer understanding of the pope’s infallibility. This development of the faithful’s understanding has its clear beginnings in the early Church. For example, Cyprian of Carthage, writing about 256, put the question this way, "Would the heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" (Letters 59 [55], 14). In the fifth century, Augustine succinctly captured the ancient attitude when he remarked, "Rome has spoken; the case is concluded" (Sermons 131, 10).
Some Clarifications
An infallible pronouncement—whether made by the pope alone or by an ecumenical council—usually is made only when some doctrine has been called into question. Most doctrines have never been doubted by the large majority of Catholics.
Pick up a catechism and look at the great number of doctrines, most of which have never been formally defined. But many points have been defined, and not just by the pope alone. There are, in fact, many major topics on which it would be impossible for a pope to make an infallible definition without duplicating one or more infallible pronouncements from ecumenical councils or the ordinary magisterium (teaching authority) of the Church.
At least the outline, if not the references, of the preceding paragraphs should be familiar to literate Catholics, to whom this subject should appear straightforward. It is a different story with "Bible Christians." For them papal infallibility often seems a muddle because their idea of what it encompasses is often incorrect.
Some ask how popes can be infallible if some of them lived scandalously. This objection of course, illustrates the common confusion between infallibility and impeccability. There is no guarantee that popes won’t sin or give bad example. (The truly remarkable thing is the great degree of sanctity found in the papacy throughout history; the "bad popes" stand out precisely because they are so rare.)
Other people wonder how infallibility could exist if some popes disagreed with others. This, too, shows an inaccurate understanding of infallibility, which applies only to solemn, official teachings on faith and morals, not to disciplinary decisions or even to unofficial comments on faith and morals. A pope’s private theological opinions are not infallible, only what he solemnly defines is considered to be infallible teaching.
Even Fundamentalists and Evangelicals who do not have these common misunderstandings often think infallibility means that popes are given some special grace that allows them to teach positively whatever truths need to be known, but that is not quite correct, either. Infallibility is not a substitute for theological study on the part of the pope.
What infallibility does do is prevent a pope from solemnly and formally teaching as "truth" something that is, in fact, error. It does not help him know what is true, nor does it "inspire" him to teach what is true. He has to learn the truth the way we all do—through study—though, to be sure, he has certain advantages because of his position.
Peter Not Infallible?
As a biblical example of papal fallibility, Fundamentalists like to point to Peter’s conduct at Antioch, where he refused to eat with Gentile Christians in order not to offend certain Jews from Palestine (Gal. 2:11–16). For this Paul rebuked him. Did this demonstrate papal infallibility was non-existent? Not at all. Peter’s actions had to do with matters of discipline, not with issues of faith or morals.
Furthermore, the problem was Peter’s actions, not his teaching. Paul acknowledged that Peter very well knew the correct teaching (Gal. 2:12–13). The problem was that he wasn’t living up to his own teaching. Thus, in this instance, Peter was not doing any teaching; much less was he solemnly defining a matter of faith or morals.
Fundamentalists must also acknowledge that Peter did have some kind of infallibility—they cannot deny that he wrote two infallible epistles of the New Testament while under protection against writing error. So, if his behavior at Antioch was not incompatible with this kind of infallibility, neither is bad behavior contrary to papal infallibility in general.
Turning to history, critics of the Church cite certain "errors of the popes." Their argument is really reduced to three cases, those of Popes Liberius, Vigilius, and Honorius, the three cases to which all opponents of papal infallibility turn; because they are the only cases that do not collapse as soon as they are mentioned. There is no point in giving the details here—any good history of the Church will supply the facts—but it is enough to note that none of the cases meet the requirements outlined by the description of papal infallibility given at Vatican I (cf. Pastor Aeternus 4).
Their "Favorite Case"
According to Fundamentalist commentators, their best case lies with Pope Honorius. They say he specifically taught Monothelitism, a heresy that held that Christ had only one will (a divine one), not two wills (a divine one and a human one) as all orthodox Christians hold.
But that’s not at all what Honorius did. Even a quick review of the records shows he simply decided not to make a decision at all. As Ronald Knox explained, "To the best of his human wisdom, he thought the controversy ought to be left unsettled, for the greater peace of the Church. In fact, he was an inopportunist. We, wise after the event, say that he was wrong. But nobody, I think, has ever claimed that the pope is infallible in not defining a doctrine."
Knox wrote to Arnold Lunn (a future convert who would become a great apologist for the faith—their correspondence is found in the book Difficulties): "Has it ever occurred to you how few are the alleged ‘failures of infallibility’? I mean, if somebody propounded in your presence the thesis that all the kings of England have been impeccable, you would not find yourself murmuring, ‘Oh, well, people said rather unpleasant things about Jane Shore . . . and the best historians seem to think that Charles II spent too much of his time with Nell Gwynn.’ Here have these popes been, fulminating anathema after anathema for centuries—certain in all human probability to contradict themselves or one another over again. Instead of which you get this measly crop of two or three alleged failures!" While Knox’s observation does not establish the truth of papal infallibility, it does show that the historical argument against infallibility is weak.
The rejection of papal infallibility by "Bible Christians" stems from their view of the Church. They do not think Christ established a visible Church, which means they do not believe in a hierarchy of bishops headed by the pope.
This is no place to give an elaborate demonstration of the establishment of a visible Church. But it is simple enough to point out that the New Testament shows the apostles setting up, after their Master’s instructions, a visible organization, and that every Christian writer in the early centuries—in fact, nearly all Christians until the Reformation—fully recognized that Christ set up an ongoing organization.
One example of this ancient belief comes to us from Ignatius of Antioch. In his second-century letter to the church in Smyrna, he wrote, "Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 8, 1 [A.D. 110]).
If Christ did set up such an organization, he must have provided for its continuation, for its easy identification (that is, it had to be visible so it could be found), and, since he would be gone from earth, for some method by which it could preserve his teachings intact.
All this was accomplished through the apostolic succession of bishops, and the preservation of the Christian message, in its fullness, was guaranteed through the gift of infallibility, of the Church as a whole, but mainly through its Christ-appointed leaders, the bishops (as a whole) and the pope (as an individual).
It is the Holy Spirit who prevents the pope from officially teaching error, and this charism follows necessarily from the existence of the Church itself. If, as Christ promised, the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church then it must be protected from fundamentally falling into error and thus away from Christ. It must prove itself to be a perfectly steady guide in matters pertaining to salvation.
Of course, infallibility does not include a guarantee that any particular pope won’t "neglect" to teach the truth, or that he will be sinless, or that mere disciplinary decisions will be intelligently made. It would be nice if he were omniscient or impeccable, but his not being so will fail to bring about the destruction of the Church.
But he must be able to teach rightly, since instruction for the sake of salvation is a primary function of the Church. For men to be saved, they must know what is to be believed. They must have a perfectly steady rock to build upon and to trust as the source of solemn Christian teaching. And that’s why papal infallibility exists.
Since Christ said the gates of hell would not prevail against his Church (Matt. 16:18b), this means that his Church can never pass out of existence. But if the Church ever apostasized by teaching heresy, then it would cease to exist; because it would cease to be Jesus’ Church. Thus the Church cannot teach heresy, meaning that anything it solemnly defines for the faithful to believe is true. This same reality is reflected in the Apostle Paul’s statement that the Church is "the pillar and foundation of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15). If the Church is the foundation of religious truth in this world, then it is God’s own spokesman. As Christ told his disciples: "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me" (Luke 10:16).
Wow.
According to the dictionary it is an offensive term for Catholicism. Not unlike offensive racial terms such as 'ch-nk' and 'nig-er'. I guess you use them as well.
</BitterSarcasm>
Except for the article, of course.
*********************
Heavens no. Why, that would be lacking in good faith.
Like lying about someone else's beliefs, yes?
Only of Dave Hunt’s books!
According to the dictionary it is an offensive term for Catholicism. Not unlike offensive racial terms such as 'ch-nk' and 'nig-er'.
"Protestant" was originally a slur (akin to the N-word) given by Roman Catholics against those German princes who objected to the H.R.Emperor's edict to execute Martin Luther, arrest all the Lutherans, try them for Heresy, and burn all their books. Not one in 100 Protestants knows that today, and probably not one in 1,000 Romanists do either. The non-Church of Rome folks just got used to the name--besides, protesting political tyranny is a good thing--even if it really doesn't describe the Reformation as a whole.
The original name chosen by the 16th Century Church Reformers for themselves was "Evangelical."
The very term "Roman Catholic" has in it the assumption that the Roman church alone is universal (the meaning of "catholic"); a HIGHLY insulting idea to Protestants, Eastern Orthodox and other Christian believers. I prefer to use the more accurate "Church of Rome" phrase.
"Popery" and "Papism" are both terms as old as "Protestant," but unlike that term still accurately relate to how Roman Catholicism says itself views its authority, namely through the Pope. Why members of the Roman church should be insulted by that, I really don't understand.
If you want to use the anachronistic "Protestant" than we have a right to use the still accurate phrases of "Popery" or "Papist." Such terms are used in older academic literature all the time....and only became supposedly offensive in these politically correct days.
If you don't think "Protestant" is the equivalent to the n-word, than you surely shouldn't think "Popery" is either.
The dictionary does not define ‘Protestantism’ as offensive. It does define ‘popery’ as offensive. Some folks do not consider ‘nig-er’ or ‘ch-nk’ as offensive, but the dictionary does. So go argue with the dictionary.
Furthermore, the problem was Peter’s actions, not his teaching. Paul acknowledged that Peter very well knew the correct teaching (Gal. 2:12–13). The problem was that he wasn’t living up to his own teaching. Thus, in this instance, Peter was not doing any teaching; much less was he solemnly defining a matter of faith or morals.
Fundamentalists must also acknowledge that Peter did have some kind of infallibility—they cannot deny that he wrote two infallible epistles of the New Testament while under protection against writing error. So, if his behavior at Antioch was not incompatible with this kind of infallibility, neither is bad behavior contrary to papal infallibility in general.
Turning to history, critics of the Church cite certain "errors of the popes." Their argument is really reduced to three cases, those of Popes Liberius, Vigilius, and Honorius, the three cases to which all opponents of papal infallibility turn; because they are the only cases that do not collapse as soon as they are mentioned. There is no point in giving the details here—any good history of the Church will supply the facts—but it is enough to note that none of the cases meet the requirements outlined by the description of papal infallibility given at Vatican I (cf. Pastor Aeternus 4).
What typical Roman sophisms! That the great Peter was corrected by Paul, over "discipline?" What the heck is that? The very point of Paul's public rebuke was that Peter's actions SPOKE LOUDER THAN WORDS, and they spoke to "faith and morals," or the Apostle Paul would not have thought it so important to publicly correct him.
It was the eyewitnesses to the Resurrection who wrote scripture--not any popes, and even the eyewitness Peter's are some of the smallest in the NT.
Then when the writer gets to the point several medieval popes--who were utter louts or who excommunicated each other or other such abominations, "there is no point in giving the details here." HA! Now THAT'S an argument for you! (and note he doesn't touch Pope John XXII). Even the "evidence" that Peter was ever Pope, let alone the 1st Pope in a succession to others WITH THE SAME AUTHORITY AS THE ORIGINAL APOSTLES, dates to hundreds of years after the events supposedly took place.
If Peter was the pope who founded the Church in Rome, then why does the very Book of Romans by St. Paul make no reference to him? Was Paul just really rude? Or, as the context makes clear, was Peter not even there yet--in spite of the Church already established in Rome?
New Testament Christianity knows nothing of a pope, his succession, or of any sort of infallibility in the man there--convenient fictions invented by super-powerful, corrupt, medieval robber-baron bishops of Rome--not even made dogma until the 1860s.
Dictionaries in English get their definitions by usage, or they are supposed to. Dictionaries are often not exactly right either—so yes, I’ll argue with that dictionary. I can’t say I’ve ever heard or read of “popery” being used like the n-word. C. S. Lewis and other older British academics regularly used it.
Besides that, as conservatives we should know, our “politically correct” super-sensitive society brands some terms as offensive when they are simply accurate.(eg: Homosexuals aren’t “gay,” they are sexually perverted even if that is considered offensive to say out loud).
If you’re not proud of knowing your Church’s authority is grounded in the papacy, as your Church clearly claims, I guess you should see “Popery” as a slur.
Popery is still an accurate term—on the other hand, no one who’s been alive for the last 450 years could accurately be called “Protestant,” protesting to the religious tyranny of Charles V.
Naming names in an argument is not name-calling.
Hunt engaged in no personal insults or attacks.
Suffice it to say that not knowing the difference between infallibility and impeccability leads to a lot of ignorant statements by non-Catholics.
Unless they can get beyond the idea that the early Church grew liturgically in the first 2-3 hundred years without a Bible about which to say Sola Scriptura, or accept early extra-Biblical references to Peter in Rome, there can be no discussion.
But those who follow Spurgeon don't want discussion anyway.
THEY WANT TO WIPE OUT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. THEY HATE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, AND CONSIDER IT A "FRONT FOR SATAN".
It took me a while to figure that out, but it's clear to me now, and it has changed quite a bit how I look at religion forum postings.
Personal? No.
He didn’t limit his slurs to any one individual. “Popery” is an ugly word, and he chose to use it, casting an epithet at about a billion people.
The reader can easily his mindset.
“””Not Dollinger for the Adrian VI quote, here’s the full version:
“If by the Roman Church you mean its head or pontiff, it is beyond question that he can err even in matters touching the faith. He does this when he teaches heresy by his own judgement or decretal. In truth, many Roman pontiffs were heretics. The last of them was Pope John XXII († 1334).” (Quaest. in IV Sent.; quoted in Viollet, Papal Infallibility and the Syllabus, 1908).*
(* According to the 1907 Catholic Encyclopedia, this work was published in 1512 from the notes of his student and without his supervision, but as it saw “many editions” it would appear that the pope did not repudiate the passage as not his own, in a work attributed to him.)”””
In response, I repeat what I said: “Further, there is no evidence that Pope Adrian said the quote attributed to him by Hunt. I believe Dollinger is Hunt’s source; but Dollinger himself does not cite it. If he ever said, it was not as pope.”
Hunt’s quotation is attributed to POPE Adrian VI, which is utterly misleading. As I said, ‘if he ever said it, it was not as pope.” The quote you provide was published in 1512, when Adrian was not yet pope. Adrian, if he said this, was a professor at Louvain at the time - and not pope. This was not a papal teaching.
However, let me expand on your parenthetical regarding the Quaestiones Quodlibicae and Commentarius in Lib VI Sentiarium Petri Lombardi (1512) - the work in question; the Catholic Encyclopedia (1907) does not merely say, as seem to suggest, that there were published without his “supervision”; they were in fact published without his knowledge. Whether it saw many editions or not, without his knowledge, we cannot extract an infallible papal statement from student notes gathered without the knowledge of their professor.
Whats more, in “De Montor’s Lives of the Popes, volume 1, page 707: This pope ranks among the ecclesiastical writers, by his Commentary upon the book of Sentences.
This book, first printed when he was a professor oat Louvain, was reprinted without the author’s sanction when he was the head of Christendom. It is one proposition is that “the pope can err even in what concerns the faith,” a proposition which proves nothing in favor of the Protestants, though they often repeat it in their attacks on the infallibility of the sovereign pontiff, as it may be understood of the private opinions of the popes, and not be essentially applicable to their solemn decisions, still less to their decrees accepted by the body of bishops. Adrian, on the throne, also, retracted the censurable opinions contained in this book.”
http://www.vaticaninexile.com/TheologicalDiscussions/Papacy/AdrianVI.html
In sum, the alleged POPE Adrian VI quote proves nothing; since, Adrian, at a minimum, never uttered or wrote these words as pope.
A good point. They tend to be rigid people, they like authortarian rule, and they just like rules. Not content to just follow the made-up rules themselves, they have to become hall monitors and insist on everybody following the rules. At heart they are very frightened individuals.
“This is what seems so ridiculous to me and practically any other non-Roman Catholic. So who determines when a pope is a private theologian or not? Why he does, of course! And then the next pope, when he disagrees can just call the previous pope acting in the place of a private theologian?
Dave Hunt may well be wrong on several attributions above, but is his history of the various medieval popes just made up hogwash? The only historic sources we have about stories of these pre-Reformation popes are Roman Catholic ones! Roman Catholic historians too acknowlege there were some seriously bad apples in the papacy at that time too—Hunt is not writing fiction about them. And those same popes made what was known at the time as “infallible teachings” about faith and morals which were soon proven to be very fallible. And the quotes I placed above Hunt, they are the real thing....with citations, and yet, they too seem to clearly contradict each other on several points. Yet all are equally authoritative, and infallible?
The vast majority of Christians would agree with the common biblical sense of Marysecretary above—no one, but our Lord and Savior alone, is infallible—no matter what his office.”
Fair question.
First, though not a lawyer myself (thank God!), I might suggest an analogy to judges who sit in on case. In the course of their review, but before their formal submission of a verdict/ruling, that they might discuss the case and express opinions to a resolution of the case. They might written treatises in law review magazines for other lawyers, etc., and expressed opinions. HOwever, everything prior to the final verdict in the case at hand is only opinion, discussion, etc. Judges might, in fact, be moved from their original views to the opposite view held by their judicial colleagues. However, once the verdict/ruling is handed down - it is the “law”.
Although all analogies are imperfect, the “opinions” in the judges’ chambers, or law treatises in law reviews, etc., are analogous to opinions of the pope prior to the rendered ruling (i.e. an infallible teaching). The fact is, popes do write works of on theology on various topics, to advance the ‘science’ of theology, without such works intended to be binding on all the faithful. Catholic do not believe popes have infused knowledge; and since they don’t they need to do research, etc., which in turn means they have opinions which may be moved or swayed prior to a final definition of faith.
By way of analogy in scripture, we know that the Lord at least said of Peter, that ‘whatever he held bound or loosed on Earth, would be bound or loosed in heaven.’ We also know that St. Paul ‘withstood’ Peter to his face. Clearly, then there is a demarcation line between what is, and is intended to be bound or loosed, by Peter; and that Paul himself could tell the difference - otherwise he risked ignoring the Lord’s promise to Peter.
The wording of the teaching of Vatican I makes clearer what we should look for: “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” (online Catholic Encyclopedia)
So, this to me at least, is straightforward. The pope has to express himself to the whole church, and make it clear he is intending to “define” or proclaim something as a doctrine to be held by the faithful. The pope does not do so through personal correspondence, theological discussions, etc, which fall short of these conditions.
“The vast majority of Christians would agree with the common biblical sense of Marysecretary above—no one, but our Lord and Savior alone, is infallible—no matter what his office.”
Yes, absolutely, God is absolutely infallible in nature - and only He, and He alone. However, do you mean to suggest the Lord can’t guide, inspire man to have written scripture free from doctrinal error?
While infallibility is not, strictly speaking, the same thing as inspiration; the argument for one has the same force as the other. If the Holy Spirit can guide men to write the Holy Scripture; surely, the same Holy Spirit can protect a man from teaching error within the Church. You might deny this in fact happens, but you cannot deny that an Infallible God could will it so. Or do you?
The Lord said what ever Peter bound or loosed, would be bound or loosed in Heaven as well; and the Lord said “he who hears you, hears me”, etc. As far as doctrinal matters go, how could the Lord promise this without the action of the Holy Spirit to prevent the promulgation of errors, whether in written word or speech?
Review the wording of the actual definition of the Catholic teaching:
“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”
You may deny this happens or the Lord promised it in fact to Peter or to his successors; but you can’t deny the Lord has the power to have accomplished this - since the claim is based on the premise the Lord willed it and could in fact do so if He wanted to.
Do you deny the Lord could have done this if he so wished? If not, our disagreement is not based on whether “ony God is infallible” in the sense that He could not ‘communicate’ infallibility through a man by the power of the Holy Spirit in select, restricted instances; our disagreement is only whether He did so.
The Catholic understanding is that in the exercise of infallbility, the pope is not given the answers (i.e. he is not “inspired) from heaven; he is only prevented - for the benefit of the living Church - from teaching an error.
>>No one is infallible.
Would that include the writers of the Gospels?
In their humanness, yes, they were fallible. Look at Peter and the way he betrayed his Lord. But the Holy Spirit wrote the gospels through his imperfect beings. He’s never wrong.
>please ping to the GRPL LIST...
Not a problem.
GRPL Bat-signal ACTIVATE!
(Sorry if this is a repeat, just going through my pings...)
Amen and well said, my dear sister in Christ - the only infallible man.
I hope the word “popery” is never barred from FR. It helps me spot the Catholic-hating bigots.
******************
You have a point.
But the Holy Spirit wrote the gospels through his imperfect beings. He’s never wrong.
This is in essence the same as the doctrine of infallibility. You may disagree with us on this doctrine, but not on the basis of "No one is infallible". Infallible human beings are not required for either case.
Who needs a pope when the scripture tells us that we have fellowship with God directly through the Son? Why add a middleman to muddy things up?
Why is it a term of bigotry? This is an honest inquiry on my part. Thanks.
Yeah but we love Catholics... :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.