| Quote: |
According to the Roman Catholic Church, the Bishop of Rome IS infallible - but only in specific cases. The current furore over remarks made by the pontiff about Islam does not fall into this category.
Papal infallibility only comes into play with issues of faith that concern the whole Church. It doesn't apply when the Pope is expressing a personal opinion or, in this case, quoting from a historical text.
Papal infallibility was hotly debated for centuries within the Church after the notion that the Pope was the preserver of apostolic - derived from the apostles - truth, was set out in the early 6th Century. But according to Catholic historian Peter Stanford the word infallible wasn't used because it was believed only God could be infallible.
It was acknowledged that various popes down the ages had brought disgrace on the office by their behaviour and judgements, he says.
It wasn't until the 19th Century that moves were made for a formal acknowledgement that the Pope was faultless. In 1870, the First Vatican Council proclaimed that the Pope was infallible - but certain conditions were attached.
The agreement reached by the Council stated that a Pope "when he speaks ex cathedra" - that is, as head of the Church - is "possessed of infallibility" when "he defines.... a doctrine concerning faith and morals to be held by the whole Church".
Once the Pope has spoken, the First Vatican Council agreed, his definitions "are irreformable of themselves".
Routine papal teaching, however, is not considered infallible.
|
from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/5355758.stm
should the pope really be 'imune' from wrong doing, he is after all human. | Manofgames wrote: |
| Quote: | According to the Roman Catholic Church, the Bishop of Rome IS infallible - but only in specific cases. The current furore over remarks made by the pontiff about Islam does not fall into this category.
Papal infallibility only comes into play with issues of faith that concern the whole Church. It doesn't apply when the Pope is expressing a personal opinion or, in this case, quoting from a historical text.
Papal infallibility was hotly debated for centuries within the Church after the notion that the Pope was the preserver of apostolic - derived from the apostles - truth, was set out in the early 6th Century. But according to Catholic historian Peter Stanford the word infallible wasn't used because it was believed only God could be infallible.
It was acknowledged that various popes down the ages had brought disgrace on the office by their behaviour and judgements, he says.
It wasn't until the 19th Century that moves were made for a formal acknowledgement that the Pope was faultless. In 1870, the First Vatican Council proclaimed that the Pope was infallible - but certain conditions were attached.
The agreement reached by the Council stated that a Pope "when he speaks ex cathedra" - that is, as head of the Church - is "possessed of infallibility" when "he defines.... a doctrine concerning faith and morals to be held by the whole Church".
Once the Pope has spoken, the First Vatican Council agreed, his definitions "are irreformable of themselves".
Routine papal teaching, however, is not considered infallible.
|
from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/5355758.stm
should the pope really be 'imune' from wrong doing, he is after all human. |
Not at all. But what, may I ask, did he do wrong?If you believe in absolute perfection of God, then you can believe that one man by the power of God can preach the Holy Spirit without error.
The Catholic Church believes that by the Holy Spirit this power is given, but only when preaching the truth, which the catholic church sees as it's dogma. So when the pope speeks in terms of dogma, he is seen as speaking the truth, because the pure faith is the pure Holy Spirit.
In that saying, the pope is preserved by the grace of God and the holy spirit because he has observed and spoke witness to the truth.
My question is, how can we discern if what the pope speaks is really the truth. He is himself convinced it is the truth, because he fits his piece into the collection of the faith and it seems to fit nicely. The announcement aligns with the traditional standing of the faith, where traditions are seen as fundamental truth. But can we really be sure that tradition is as perfect as we thought? The earlier pope's preached depression as a mortal sin, but in recent years had to reclaim depression as more acceptable. There was a saint beatified by a past pope, only to be un-beatified because of later observations. And I thought beatification was inside infallibility....
Our Church (which is Roman Catholic) does not believe in the infallibility of the Pope. In reality, the Pope's infallibility is that he is the "big cheese" when it comes to Church related issues - abortion, for instance. He is the one who, basically, creates/changes/deletes doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church.
That doesn't mean He is always right, just that He has the final say on Church doctrines. (And it's not him alone, remember all of the Cardinals in Rome).
| Manofgames wrote: |
should the pope really be 'imune' from wrong doing, he is after all human. |
Hmm, and his human form is subject to the consequences of his human error. The 'infallibility' tag only works in the doctrinal system of the Catholic church and within the confines of the Vatican state. Outside of this the Pope has diplomatic immunity to some extent but is subject to the laws and punishments of a particular state in the same way as other people.
Papal infallibility itself is limited to matters of doctrine when the Pope is speaking 'ex cathedra' - ie in his role as Church leader. Infallible pronouncements must clearly state that they are such and normally start with the words "We declare, decree and define...".
The concept dates back to the early church but is first discussed systematically by Theodore Abu Qurra in the 9th century.
Myself ? I think it is a ridiculous concept, but I'm a lapsed Catholic so I would say that wouldn't I ? 8)
Regards
Chris | Soulfire wrote: |
That doesn't mean He is always right, just that He has the final say on Church doctrines. (And it's not him alone, remember all of the Cardinals in Rome). |
No Soulfire, you need to check up on what you believe :-)
The Pope may declare an infallible doctrinal point without recourse to the Cardinals or other advisors and, as far as these doctrinal points go, infallibility is the correct term since previous such pronouncements by other Pontiffs cannot be contradicted.
Regards
Chrissurely there is a difference between whether the pope is infallible to catholics, and whether he is infallible at all.
as an old man in silly clothes, he is at least as fallible as everyone else, but probably more so
| mgumn wrote: |
surely there is a difference between whether the pope is infallible to catholics, and whether he is infallible at all.
as an old man in silly clothes, he is at least as fallible as everyone else, but probably more so |
Like i said above, I think.....
C.agreed, shall i delete it so i dont look so silly, or, accept that i too make mistakes...
| mgumn wrote: |
agreed, shall i delete it so i dont look so silly, or, accept that i too make mistakes...
:wink: |
LOL...I won't tell if you don't :-)Of course he's not infallible. He human and humans are fallible. And who chooses him? Not God, humans, humans who vote on who they think should be pope.
What I don't understand is why there is still a position of pope. The whole structure of the Catholic church is nothing more than an archaic power structure thats soul purpose is to control people through religion, the only purpose for the power structure of that Catholic church is to control people, not to bring them to God, power, control.
The proof is in the pedophile preset scandals. They moved the presets around instead of saying "No! Give me that collar! Your fired! Take this thing out of my site officers."
| The Conspirator wrote: |
Of course he's not infallible. He human and humans are fallible. And who chooses him? Not God, humans, humans who vote on who they think should be pope.
What I don't understand is why there is still a position of pope. The whole structure of the Catholic church is nothing more than an archaic power structure thats soul purpose is to control people through religion, the only purpose for the power structure of that Catholic church is to control people, not to bring them to God, power, control.
The proof is in the pedophile preset scandals. They moved the presets around instead of saying "No! Give me that collar! Your fired! Take this thing out of my site officers." |
Nonono...Catholics play nice games of Dogma, Theology, etc for a good reason - I worked it out after many years being beaten by Monks.
Basically if you can believe something REALLY dumb then it shows how strong your faith is.
Remember the Hitchikers Guide -
'Have you believed 6 impossible items of Dogma before breakfast ? Round it off with breakfast at Milliways'.
A really well trainined theologian can hold up to 12 contradictory or physically impossible ideas at one time without breaking sweat.
I'm not sure what the current world record is...I'll have to check.
So the idea is to believe as hard as you can and practice with the little things...start by believing that water was turned into wine.
When you have mastered that then you can move on to more complex dogma. Maybe have a bash at the virgin birth, or perhaps a beginner's look at ressurection.
After many years practice you will be ready for the biggies. , Papal infallibility AS A CONSEQUENCE of being in Heaven from the moment of election and, therefore, in direct communion with God and, therefore infallible. The real professionals will go onto such daring acts of faith as the Trinity and even Transubstantiation is not beyond the practiced congregant.
Regards
Chris
