Debate, and discuss, just dont Bore me.
Published on November 22, 2005 By Dr Guy In Religion

There is a very real misconception about how the Pope is Infallible.  Indeed, it is not only held by non-catholics, but many Catholics as well.  But the truth is that the Pope can only be Infallible when certain conditions are met.  And while the Church does not list how many times those conditions have been met, most theologians only agree on 2 instances.

The first was in 1854 When Pope Pius IX came out with the Immaculate Conception of Mary (another misconception for a later day).  The Second was in 1950 when Pope Pius XII spoke on the Assumption of Mary.

Some theologians believe there are more instances, and indeed there maybe.  But it was the Vatican Council I that came up with the official doctrine so any Infallible statements prior to that are argued upon, even though the doctrine has its roots in the Gospels and Paul's letters.  So while the Pope may have been speaking infallibly in the past, some dont recognize it until it became an official Teaching of the Church.

So it is evident that not everything the Pope says is infallible, and indeed from the sparsity of times it is even thought to have been done, most of the time the Pope is not infallible.

For the Pope to make an infallible statement, some conditions have to be met.  First he must be speaking ex cathedra, or for the whole Church. Second it cannot contradict any previous teachings of the Church. Third, he must basically state that he is resolving some point of Doctrine with absolute authority, and finally, he must be addressing the entire Church (the entire Church being all members of faith).

So while some Priests last year were railing against John Kerry and his pro-life position on abortion, no Pope has ever spoken Ex Cathedra on the subject, and therefore it is a teaching of the Church, not a doctrine of the Church.  And that in itself is a critical distinction.  For any Catholic can doubt a Teaching of the Church, and still remain a member in good standing.  But you cannot doubt a Doctrine of the Church and still remain a Catholic (Doubting in and Doubting out).

The Doctrine of Infallibility is a powerful one, and while the Church has been abusive in many of its practices in the past, that is one it has not abused.  And for Good reason.  For the whole concept behind Infallibility is that you are speaking with the Voice of God.  And even corrupt Popes did not want to cross Him!


Comments (Page 3)
3 Pages1 2 3 
on Nov 28, 2005
Of the several meanings generally agreed upon of the metaphor, two are of special importance here: the giving of authoritative teaching, and the lifting or imposing of the ban of excommunication


P.S. What do you mean by this? I think I know but would like you to explain further.

KFC

on Nov 30, 2005
days...") Ludwig Ott points out the many indications in Scripture that Peter was given a primary role with respect to the other Apostles: Mk 5:37, Mt 17:1, Mt 26:37, Lk 5:3, Mt 17:27, Lk 22:32, Lk 24:34, and 1 Cor 15:5 (Fund., Bk. IV, Pt. 2, Ch. 2, ยง5).


Ok, wanted to tackle this bit of info as well (if you don't mind?) since you put it out there. I think scripture is clear that Peter was a great Apostle. Ending up better than how he started and isn't that the goal of us all? It's not how we start out but how we finish that's important.

Peter was one of the 12 and defintely the spokesman for the group. He was listed first and was always part of the inner circle along with James and John. When Jesus changed his name in John 1 he looked at Peter and said his name would be changed from Simon (listener) to Peter (talker) by interpretation a stone. Also do you know that after jesus changed Simon's name to Peter he never called him by the name of Peter. He still called him Simon. Maybe that's cuz he wanted Simon to listen more. Maybe if he had the denials never would have happened....just a thought.

This is where all the fuss originated and later put with the confession of Peter in Matt 16 was a means of starting the denomination we know today as the RCC. This is not what Peter nor Jesus had in mind if you take into account ALL the scriptures. Let's look at just these above. listed

Mk 5:37 & Matt 17:1, 26:37 names all three of the inner circle., Peter, James, John Not sure how that proves Peter primary except if you mean he was mentioned first. Well someone had to be named first.

Matt 17:27-Jesus had Peter go and get a coin from a fish to pay for the tax. How does this show superiority over the other disciples? Peter was confused. Normally the royal family are exempt from the tax. Jesus, the Son of God (royalty) was not obligated to pay for the support of God's house. But to avoid offense he would pay and Jesus provided that coin thru a miracle enough to pay the tax for them both. So I suppose it could be used that because Peter's tax was paid for and not the others, maybe then he was primary. I could actually go here with you on that.....to some degree. But it's a bit of a stretch.

Luke 5:3. Jesus went into Peter's ship and preached. It said there were two ship and he went into one of them. That one just happened to be Peter's. So because of that Peter is considered a primary Apostle?

Luke 22:32-Here Jesus is saying to Peter he is praying for him to stay strong. For one thing Jesus knows the denials that are coming in which Peter will be denying him. But also we can read in Heb 7:25 which says. ".......seeing He ever lives to make intercession for them." He as our great HP is making intercesiion for all of us who desire to come to him. We see also that he's praying for us all in John 17 known as the great intercessory prayer.

Luke 24:34 & 1 Cor 15:5. These are the only two mentions of this here. These are 2 men walking along the way and are making conversation and say that Jesus did raise from the dead and appeared to Simon. But if you go to Mark 16:9 you read it much more clearly put..."Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared FIRST to Mary Magdalene out of whom he had cast seven demons." Now using this same logic Mary of Magdela must be the primary. She got to see him FIRST. Do you know who wrote Mark? John Mark and he was Peter's companion. Mark is a gospel of action. It was written thru the eyes of Peter. Interesting.....hmmmm?

Also already showed where James was the first leader of the first Council in Jerusalem (Acts 15). But did the above link show you this quote from Paul about Peter? "But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face because he was to be blamed." Peter was not preaching heresy but neither was he consistently preaching the gospel of grace either. So Paul rebuked Peter here. Didn't Paul realize Peter was the first Pope? No I guess not. What did Peter say when the first gentile convert bowed at his feet? "Get up I'm just a man."

While I believe Peter was a very important Apostle one of the top 3 when you look at the WHOLE of scipture it doesn't pan out that he was the first Pope of the RCC. And this cannot be proven. It can't even be proven that he started the church in Rome. Not by scriptures or traditon. Peter was given the keys to open the doors of Christianity to the Gentiles which he did so to the house of Cornelius. But if you look.....Christ has the keys ....Rev 1. Christ is the Rock and Peter even says so himself. Read his book.

You have to go outside of scripture and go with tradition here. That's where I stop and turn back around. Because all these groups do the same thing. The only difference is the RCC started first and got a pretty big head start... I have a feeling Peter if he knows anything at all here on earth is grieving for the church.










on Dec 03, 2005
James Joyce would say, if you must be religious, then you're impelled to go Catholic.
on Dec 03, 2005
Whose James Joyce?

You can be religious about anything...I know a religious hunter, beer drinker, knitter.....etc
on Dec 04, 2005
Whose James Joyce?


yikes
on Dec 04, 2005
oops..........as I was saying.....who's James Joyce?
on Dec 04, 2005

James Joyce would say, if you must be religious, then you're impelled to go Catholic.

Unlike baptists, we do get to drink!

on Dec 05, 2005
who's James Joyce?


you're serious? joyce is a major 20th century writer (possibly THE major 20th century writer), the creator of 'ulysses', 'dubliners' (short stories, of which 'the dead' is the best known) and 'portrait of the artist as a young man' the protagonist of which is none other than the self-styled stephen dedalus. joyce uses words the way abstract artists do paint.
on Dec 06, 2005
you're serious? joyce is a major 20th century writer (possibly THE major 20th century writer), the creator of 'ulysses', 'dubliners' (short stories, of which 'the dead' is the best known) and 'portrait of the artist as a young man' the protagonist of which is none other than the self-styled stephen dedalus. joyce uses words the way abstract artists do paint.


he also does not know about paragraphs!
on Dec 16, 2005
sorry, but I never heard of him. Do you know C.S. Lewis? I think he's the major 20th century writer. In fact the movie Narnia just coming up is his creation. He was very good friends with J.R. Tolken.

And Lewis does know about paragraphs
on Dec 16, 2005
oh and Baptists can drink....it's the getting drunk that's a sin!!!
3 Pages1 2 3