Skip to the content
Icon of Christ
› ›

Papal Infallability

2»

Comments

  • marysmarys

    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.

    Infallible by definition means to be "incapable of error" (merriam-webster's). The core word of incapable makes it as if he is bound somehow into being physically unable to make a mistake, which is not the truth. Maybe the matter lies in your choice of words for claiming the very low probability that a pope may make a mistake.
  • SafaaSafaa
    Tu es Petrus,
    I did not yet heard from you about who is the Rock, is He the Lord Jesus Christ Or is it St. Peter?
    I mentioned some quotation from the Holy Bible, you can find them a couple of posts before.

  • tu es Petrustu es Petrus
    sure we will get to that in due time.
    papal infallibility is the dogma that the Pope is preserved from error when he solemnly promulgates, or declares, to the Church a decision on faith or morals.

    let us not argue about what you think the word means, but what the church teaches it means.

    I will get back to about St. Peter over the weekend.

    Sam
  • marysmarys
    so explain to me.. how does that happen without contradicting the Bible?
  • tu es Petrustu es Petrus
    According to the teaching of the First Vatican Council and Catholic tradition, the conditions required for ex cathedra teaching are as follows:

    * The pope must teach in his public and official capacity as spiritual head of the Church universal, not merely in his private capacity as a theologian.

    * He must be teaching some doctrine of faith or morals in a manner that explicitly and solemnly defines an issue.

    * His teaching cannot contradict anything the Church has taught officially and previously.

    * It must be evident that he intends to teach with his supreme Apostolic authority. In other words, he must convey his wish to determine some point of doctrine in an absolutely final and irrevocable way. There are well-recognized formulas that are used to express this intention, such as "We declare, decree and define, . . .".

    * It must be clear that the Pope intends to bind the whole Church. Unless the Pope formally addresses the whole Church in the recognized official way, he is assumed to not intend his teaching to be ex cathedra and infallible (unless he is reiterating what has always been taught).
  • Michael_ThomaMichael_Thoma
    Not to answer for Sam, but let me give my input as a Catholic (Eastern Catholic). The pope's infallibility (as we understand it) is similar to the infallibility that the Oecumenical Councils have. The Pope's is an extension of this.

    I will post below a link to an interview of Metropolitan Zizioulas of the Ecumenical Patriachate, please take a look at it:
    http://www.30giorni.it/us/articolo.asp?id=9204
  • tu es Petrustu es Petrus
    Are you an Eastern Catholic?

    what Rite are you?


    Sam
  • Michael_ThomaMichael_Thoma
    A person cannot belong to a "Rite", I belong to the Syro-Malankara Catholic Church. My Church celebrates the Syro-Indian Rites and Syriac/Indian Traditions.
  • Unknown

    The pope's infallibility (as we understand it) is similar to the infallibility that the Oecumenical Councils have. The Pope's is an extension of this.

    Ecumenical Councils: RC church made numerous Councils that we do not consider Ecumenical. But you will imply that "the Pope cannot make mistakes" so these Ecumenical Councils whether our Orthodox Church attended or even agreed upon their conclusions or decisions is considered unnecessary! And you cannot claim we were invited then didn't come to the council so you had to proceed!!

    Ecumenical means all the inhabited world, in other words ALL the Christians, ALL CHURCHES. Since the Disciples, these councils were held for major replies against heresies, for consolidation of faith where ALL meet. It is not a one party or a one man show.

    As such many of these "Ecumenical" Councils are not at all Ecumenical and are not to be imposed, furthermore some of these councils were held by opposing RC Popes at almost the same timing. We consider many of them as meetings to discuss issues local to the RCC.

    And for instance, when you say Ecumenical Patriachate do you mean ALL Churches united or just All members of your own Church?

    His teaching cannot contradict anything the Church has taught officially and previously.

    Very wise indeed but contradicting so this is very alarming.
  • Michael_ThomaMichael_Thoma

    Ecumenical Councils: RC church made numerous Councils that we do not consider Ecumenical. But you will imply that "the Pope cannot make mistakes" so these Ecumenical Councils whether our Orthodox Church attended or even agreed upon their conclusions or decisions is considered unnecessary! And you cannot claim we were invited then didn't come to the council so you had to proceed!!

    I don't know where you got this idea, but many Eastern CATHOLICS hold that the Western Councils are General Councils of the West not Oecumenical Councils.

    Ecumenical means all the inhabited world, in other words ALL the Christians, ALL CHURCHES. Since the Disciples, these councils were held for major replies against heresies, for consolidation of faith where ALL meet. It is not a one party or a one man show.

    I think you believe as I do, that this is impossible. Do you think the protestants such as Pat Robertson will ever attend a Catholic or Orthodox Council, ever? Does that make the Council any less authoritative?

    Also, using your criteria, what of the Council of Ephesus in 431 - Since it is not recognised by the 'Assyrian' Church of the East - is it no longer truly Oecumenical?

    And for instance, when you say Ecumenical Patriachate do you mean ALL Churches united or just All members of your own Church?

    The Ecumenical Patriarch is the Eastern Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople (present day Istanbul, Turkey).
  • Unknown
    Brother, let's not diverge too far in topics or facts that we both understand. I meant Churches not pseudo-churches. Do we not agree that the Nestorian 'Church' cannot be considered a real Church because their faith is incorrect?

    I cannot judge P.Robertson but my personnal opinion is sure he is not on the right track. He mixes politics with faith in weird ways and I dislike his choice of titles for many books, such as 'The Ten Offenses', etc. In short, for me his pancakes are not worth buying. Any case if he is considered a whole Church then he should be invited.

    Back to history. To the RCC allow me to ask: what is the meaning of Mark 9:35; 10:31; 10:44? What made the Protestant movement to appear?

    Michael_Thoma, allow me to ask: what repeatedly weakened the Byzantine Empire so much? What was the major cause of fall of what was left of the Byzantine Empire, not too long prior the Ottoman invasion?

    I refer to history to extract important lessons based on facts, in order to analyse so we may avoid sad situations in the future.
  • dioscorusdioscorus
    dear Sam,
    could u please tell me the name of the Archbishop of rome between 855-858 please?
    if u told us his (or her) name , U will find a clear answer about papal infallibility in teaching and dogmas
  • dioscorusdioscorus
    Sam Quotes : "Indeed, infallibility also belongs to the body of bishops as a whole, when, in doctrinal unity with the pope, they solemnly teach a doctrine as true."
    it is funny to find the Roman Synod accepts by their infalliblity in dogmatic teaching the Arian Heresey in the fourth century and exactly before Archbishop Celestine of rome.
    where was this infallibility?
Sign In or Register to comment.