Papal Infallibility- MYTH BUSTED

[King of the Americas]

Pope 'apologises' for his mispeaking

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=worldNews&storyid=2006-09-16T151600Z_01_L16121346_RTRUKOC_0_US-POPE-ISLAM.xml&src=rss&rpc=22

I was raised Catholic, but I like to say that I left the church when I reached the age of reason.

One of my main arguments was that I disagreed with many of the church's core values, one of which was that the Pope is Christ incarnate, and thus infallible.

I also hated how we never studied the bible in its entirity, but rather focused on the gospels, and we were taught the 'stories' in the bible and we knew who the characters were, but we didn't spend a lot of time reading out of or studing the actual text of the bible.

The Catholic Church has tried to change with the times, but having a Pope 'apologise', that's news to me!!!

I can't help but wonder if any Catholic actually believes in Papal infallibility...?

[TragicMonkey]

Sigh. For the ten millionth time, papal infallibility does not refer to anything and everything the pope says on any topic. It applies only in one particular, deliberate exercise of his job functions. I would post the Wikipedia link, but I've already posted it 9,999,999 times. Papal infallibility has been used twice in the entire history of the Church, once in the middle of the last century, and once in the middle of the century before. Both times were to clear up obscure theological waffle about the Virgin Mary. Ain't nobody, no how, no way thinking that Ratsy's recent PR gaffe about Islam has anything to do with papal infallibility. Er, except you, I mean.

Sorry for the heat, but it annoys me when people get the infallibility wrong. It's an idiotic concept, but that's no reason for the people who don't believe in it to get it wrong. Just like the Immaculate Conception. If I had a dollar for every time I've heard people misapply it to Jesus, I'd be typing this on a very fancy computer indeed.

[Darat]

The Pope is only considered infallible in very limited circumstances. This is quite a good article explaining it: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm

ETA: TM - the article I link to has a section called "ORGANS OF INFALLIBILITY" - so I rate it much higher then the Wikipedia article.

[TragicMonkey]

Mine was more ranty!

[senorpogo]

The Catholic Church teaches that the Pope is infallible when speaking ex cathedra or from his chair.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility

Secondly, Pope John Paul apologized all the time. To Africans (http://afgen.com/afr_pope.html). To Jews. (http://www.jewishaz.com/jewishnews/000317/pope.shtml) Even on the internet (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1671540.stm).

[senorpogo]

I would post the Wikipedia link, but I've already posted it 9,999,999 times.

I'm only 9,999,998 behind.
But give it some time.

[RandFan]

Sigh. For the ten millionth time, papal infallibility does not refer to anything and everything the pope says on any topic. It applies only in one particular, deliberate exercise of his job functions. I would post the Wikipedia link, but I've already posted it 9,999,999 times. Papal infallibility has been used twice in the entire history of the Church, once in the middle of the last century, and once in the middle of the century before. Both times were to clear up obscure theological waffle about the Virgin Mary. Ain't nobody, no how, no way thinking that Ratsy's recent PR gaffe about Islam has anything to do with papal infallibility. Er, except you, I mean.

Sorry for the heat, but it annoys me when people get the infallibility wrong. It's an idiotic concept, but that's no reason for the people who don't believe in it to get it wrong. Just like the Immaculate Conception. If I had a dollar for every time I've heard people misapply it to Jesus, I'd be typing this on a very fancy computer indeed.Damn, you think you know everything and then you find out you don't. I was wrong since I've quoted this myself before. Now I know.

[King of the Americas]

I am sorry, I think that whole defense of Papal Infallbility 'only in X, Y, and Z, instances', is a load of crap...

"Oh, the Pope can be wrong about what to eat and or wear, but when it comes to Pope Pius IX's 1854 definition of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary, and Pope Pius XII's 1950 definition of the dogma of the Assumption of Mary, he can't POSSIBILY be wrong in ANY way."

I am sure they reached that conclusion after numerous tests and scientific findings.

The very notion, that 'someone' could be wrong in EVERY aspect of life and their understanding of the world, and yet be 'absolutely right' when it comes to Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and the Sacred Magisterium, is more that laughable.

Pardon me sir, I know you are a woman who gave birth, who happens to be Pope, who is merely 'pretending' to be a Man, but please tell me more about how you know exactly how Mary was without sin. (*I.E. Pope John Anglicus, which may be a fictional character, but who is to say.)

Human Infallibility is a MYTH, be it the Pope on Scripture, or John Madden on Sunday Football. MEN are prone to error, even if they are THE most studied in that field as any man before him.

You show me a man who says he can't possibly be 'wrong' about a topic, and I'll show you a liar.

[King of the Americas]

An example of Papal Infallibility:

The Immaculate Conception is a Catholic dogma that asserts that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was preserved by God from the stain of original sin at the time of her own conception. Specifically, the dogma says she was not afflicted by the lack of sanctifying grace that afflicts humankind, but was instead filled with grace by God, and furthermore lived a life completely free from sin. It is commonly confused with the doctrine of the incarnation and virgin birth, though the two deal with separate subjects. According to the dogma, Mary was conceived by normal biological means, but her soul was acted upon by God (kept "immaculate") at the time of her conception.

Did you read that...?

Mary, Mother of Christ, was without sin of ANY kind???

*cough*B******T*cough*

Something inside me tells me that, that finding can't be proven or tested.

Anyone believes that 'Mary' never told a lie or threw a stone at a neighbor boy after he called he a name, is lacking some serious intellectual gravitas? Sin comes in every size, shape, and kind. I am sure I have sinned a dozen time in the very writing of this. And we are supposed to swallow that because some Pope said, decades after the fact, that Mary was without sin from the day she was conceived, that she actually WAS???

I said it before, and I'll say it again, Papal Infallibility is a MYTH!!!

[Aoidoi]

I am sorry, I think that whole defense of Papal Infallbility 'only in X, Y, and Z, instances', is a load of crap...Like Randi, you can really only argue that someone is wrong about what they actually say they can do. They only argue that the pope is infallible part of the time, therefore mocking him for being wrong other times doesn't really relate. It's like yelling at a guy who claims he is telepathic for not being telekinetic.

Yes, it's silly to claim that a man is infallible, even part of the time. Yes, the Pope is clearly wrong sometimes. Not sure why you're all worked up about it, I kind of doubt anyone here is going to argue for papal infallibility.

[Beerina]

Pope 'apologises' for his mispeaking

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=worldNews&storyid=2006-09-16T151600Z_01_L16121346_RTRUKOC_0_US-POPE-ISLAM.xml&src=rss&rpc=22

I was raised Catholic, but I like to say that I left the church when I reached the age of reason.

One of my main arguments was that I disagreed with many of the church's core values, one of which was that the Pope is Christ incarnate, and thus infallible.

I grew up Catholic, and this is a new one to me. My mother told me once that the Pope was only infallible when he spoke ex cathedra, and that this had only been done twice.

But all kinds of booga-booga is believed among non-Catholic Christians who, like any other religion, use anything they can to bash competitors in flock-building. Hence John Kennedy makes a statement that he won't obey something the Pope says just because the Pope says it.

I also hated how we never studied the bible in its entirity, but rather focused on the gospels, and we were taught the 'stories' in the bible and we knew who the characters were, but we didn't spend a lot of time reading out of or studing the actual text of the bible.

The Catholic Church has tried to change with the times, but having a Pope 'apologise', that's news to me!!!

I can't help but wonder if any Catholic actually believes in Papal infallibility...?

As these are not ex cathedra statements, it's a non-issue.

And, to comment on recent developments, I'm a bit disturbed. All those of you who whined about John Paul II, look what can happen! In addition to all the "usual stuff", you also get, thrown in at no additional cost, Intelligent Design and statements about Muslims that, given the current worldview, and to put the kindest spin possible on it, "are not exactly helping things."

[King of the Americas]

Merely claiming infallibility of ANY kind is whooeee...

And I don't think your telepathic telekinetic comparison washes, man.

If someone ISN'T telepathic, they simply aren't. If they aren't telekinetic, they aren't.

The Pope isn't infallible when it comes to who is right and wrong, and he isn't infallible when it comes to Mary's being without sin.

That the Pope is a Man, and thus prone to error, is evidence enough for me to proounce Papal Infallibility as a Myth.

[senorpogo]

But what do you hope to achieve by completely misrepresenting the position of the Catholic Church? If you're just ranting, fine. But, as others have pointed out, you can't hope to change minds when you're intentionally misrepresenting their positions.

You show me a man who says he can't possibly be 'wrong' about a topic, and I'll show you a liar.

What about someone who claims to be infallible when it comes to basic addition and subtraction? That seems possible.

[ceo_esq]

Like Randi, you can really only argue that someone is wrong about what they actually say they can do. They only argue that the pope is infallible part of the time, therefore mocking him for being wrong other times doesn't really relate. It's like yelling at a guy who claims he is telepathic for not being telekinetic.

Yes, it's silly to claim that a man is infallible, even part of the time. Yes, the Pope is clearly wrong sometimes. Not sure why you're all worked up about it, I kind of doubt anyone here is going to argue for papal infallibility.

Papal infallibility is not supposed to be a form of human infallibility. It's supposed to be a question of God honoring a promise to keep the Church out of spiritual error, which is fairly limited in scope as promises go. It makes sense, then, that someone who believed in that premise would believe that the pope could speak infallibly with respect to certain matters but not others - because it would not be a property inhering in him but coming from the outside.

Unfortunately, that myth is pretty much ironclad bust-proof.

That said, the pope doesn't seem to be taking a different position here. He seems to be suggesting that other people failed to understand the meaning of his discourse the first time around.

[King of the Americas]

If you claimed to be 'perfect' in adding and subtracting, then I'd test that by having you do simple addition and subtraction for 7 days straight without rest.

I'd be willing to bet that by day 3 you'd be getting a few wrong now and again.

Humans are weak, inconsistant, and vulnerable to envinonmental changes.

We are not immune to error, and thus we are fallable, even in regards to the stuff we are really really good at.

---

"God" promised to make sure the Church knew what it was talking about in reference to 'some' Church teachings, but could care less with the rest of it...???

I guess even God needs a coffee break...to bad he IS willing to leave his bride without proper instructons...

Who knew God would take a part time role, with his omni-present abilities.

[RandFan]

If you claimed to be 'perfect' in adding and subtracting, then I'd test that by having you do simple addition and subtraction for 7 days straight without rest.

I'd be willing to bet that by day 3 you'd be getting a few wrong now and again.

Humans are weak, inconsistant, and vulnerable to envinonmental changes.

We are not immune to error, and thus we are fallable, even in regards to the stuff we are really really good at.

---

"God" promised to make sure the Church knew what it was talking about in reference to 'some' Church teachings, but could care less with the rest of it...???

I guess even God needs a coffee break...to bad he IS willing to leave his bride without proper instructons...

Who knew God would take a part time role, with his omni-present abilities.1.) I don't believe in God.
2.) I don't think the pope is ever infallible.
3.) I understand the argument made by ceo and others and I don't have a problem with the logic.

[ceo_esq]

If you claimed to be 'perfect' in adding and subtracting, then I'd test that by having you do simple addition and subtraction for 7 days straight without rest.

I'd be willing to bet that by day 3 you'd be getting a few wrong now and again.

Humans are weak, inconsistant, and vulnerable to envinonmental changes.

I suspect the Church would be the first to agree. But what you're talking about is not really relevant to the Catholic doctrine of infallibility. Imagine hypothetically not only that you had to do sums for 7 days straight, but that you had an omniscient and omnipotent entity watching you who had resolved to prevent you in one way or another from announcing a wrong answer. What would happen then would have little if anything to do with human nature.


"God" promised to make sure the Church knew what it was talking about in reference to 'some' Church teachings, but could care less with the rest of it...???

Is there really a part of "the rest of it" that qualifies as a "Church teaching"? You have dogma regarding faith and morals, which is covered either by papal infallibility or (far more typically) the infallibility of the ordinary Magisterium (or so the doctrine goes), and then ... what? The Church doesn't go around officially making, say, sports picks.

[7th sextile]

[QUOTE=ceo_esq;



... The Church doesn't go around officially making, say, sports picks.[/QUOTE]

Which of course brings us to best evidence against Papal Infallibilty:
The Pontiff's refusal to rule ex cathedra on the case of the so-called
Immaculate Reception,Raiders v.Steelers,Christmas Eve Eve,1972.
Most theologians hold that if only Fuqua touched the ball before
O'Harris,the Reception could not be called "Immaculate"because the play
wasn't completed as designed.A minority claim that the "Immaculate"
should be avoided even if the ball hit Tatum,one of the more maculate
DBs in the league at the time.
When the dispute was kicked upstairs to His Holiness,however,he refused
to make the "ex cath" ruling,only commenting off the record:

1) He was not going to make a ruling involving a guy named "Frenchy".

2)At most the play should be loosely deemed "miraculous".

3)God would not intervene on behalf of the Steelers till many
years later,hardening the hearts of the zebras against the
Seattle Seahawks.

[CFLarsen]

One of my main arguments was that I disagreed with many of the church's core values, one of which was that the Pope is Christ incarnate, and thus infallible.

Who, within the Catholic Church, claims this?

Sources, please.

[Ladewig]

Mary, Mother of Christ, was without sin of ANY kind???

*cough*B******T*cough*

Something inside me tells me that, that finding can't be proven or tested.

Anyone believes that 'Mary' never told a lie or threw a stone at a neighbor boy after he called he a name, is lacking some serious intellectual gravitas? Sin comes in every size, shape, and kind. I am sure I have sinned a dozen time in the very writing of this. And we are supposed to swallow that because some Pope said, decades after the fact, that Mary was without sin from the day she was conceived, that she actually WAS???

I said it before, and I'll say it again, Papal Infallibility is a MYTH!!!

I am not sure why you are getting so worked up over this one Catholic belief. The whole shebang is kind of over the top, if you will: The miracle of transubstantiation, the miracle of Jesus's resurrection, the need for Jesus's death to bring forgiveness to the world. Once you buy into the basic tenets of Catholicism, is Mary's innocence really the straw that breaks the camel's back? Once you swallow God telling the earthlings, "you've behaved so very, very badly that now I'm going to have to kill my Son to make things right. I hope you're happy because He has to die a horrible, horrible death because of what you did," then is anything else really too wacky to believe?

[Darat]

Ladewig - I'm not too sure, it's surprising how many people don't know the various Doctrines that surround Mary - including Roman Catholics (in my experience). Many of the other claims you mention are pretty much part and parcel of peoples' culture in many EU countries and the USA so I suspect they are just accepted without much thought. However being confronted with the contortions and the claims made of the various Mary doctrines I think can be the thing that sends some people over the edge into disbelief.

[Ladewig]

Ladewig - I'm not too sure, it's surprising how many people don't know the various Doctrines that surround Mary - including Roman Catholics (in my experience). Many of the other claims you mention are pretty much part and parcel of peoples' culture in many EU countries and the USA so I suspect they are just accepted without much thought. However being confronted with the contortions and the claims made of the various Mary doctrines I think can be the thing that sends some people over the edge into disbelief.

I think I see your point. I've come across Baptists that consider orthodox Catholic beliefs to be so over the edge that the Baptists don't consider the Catholics to be Christians. I was adopting the position that someone raised Catholic shouldn't find Mary's innocence (as described by Immaculate Conception) all that upsetting. I haven't found very many R.C.s that didn't know that I.C. refers to Mary's birth.

Aside: I think transubstantiation is primaily a R.C. belief and not a widely-held protestant belief.

[SirPhilip]

I can't help but wonder if any Catholic actually believes in Papal infallibility...? I think it's mostly performance art to encourage the people not to slip into decadence. It's worked quite well. The Christian tradition really revolves around clemency, though, so the image of a frail, sincere, faithful, but human man is representative of the faith.

[Brainache]

This is all very educational to a lapsed atheist such as myself, but it doesn't answer the question: What the hell was he thinking?

Did he sincerely believe that quoting some old Byzantine emperor who thought the teachings of Mohammad were evil was going to help spread peace and joy in the world?

Was he on crack?

Did he think muslems all over the world would slap their foreheads and say, "Ya know what? This pope fella is right, pass the wine and crackers. And while you're at it get me a couple of pork pies and a crucifix. Hallelujah!"??

I don't know about infallability, but I think there should now be a doctrine of papal imbecility.

[Beleth]

the article I link to has a section called "ORGANS OF INFALLIBILITY"
They're called "boobs", Ed.

Love,
Erin Brockovich

[Marc L]

The very notion, that 'someone' could be wrong in EVERY aspect of life and their understanding of the world, and yet be 'absolutely right' when it comes to Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and the Sacred Magisterium, is more that laughable.

These people believe the world was created in six days, that their founder rose from the dead, and that their god can be simultaneously three different people, and still be one person, and you want to quibble over Papal Infalability?

Marc

[Marc L]

One of my main arguments was that I disagreed with many of the church's core values, one of which was that the Pope is Christ incarnate

Minor nit. Catholics believe that the Pope is Christ's regent here on earth, not that he is Christ incarnate.

Marc

[King of the Americas]

'Believers' are wacky...

Nuff said.

---

I guess that why we call them 'believers'. They 'believe' without proof, otherwise we'd have to call them scientists.

Thank you all for your insight.

[Darth Rotor]

You show me a man who says he can't possibly be 'wrong' about a topic, and I'll show you a liar.
The word usage of infallible in this matter works like this.

Pope is in charge of doctrine and dogma within the finite context of the Catholic Church's (RCC) role of dictating to the faithful the doctrine and dogma of the RCC. (That the RCC presumes that all others are "not quite proper Christians" we will set aside for the moment, OK?)

The heirarchical structure, which is reinforced by the Confession of the Faith, the Apostle's Creed, etc, points to the Faithful in the RCC accepting that the Pope is in charge of the catholic (universal) and apostelic church. They re-affirm its autocratic nature within the context of "this is a church, this is our church, and he's the head of it. His official (ex cathedra) pronouncements made are the rules of practice in RCC matters, by which we abide." They don't accept his infallibility when it comes to when one should rotate one's tires, as that is not a matter of doctrine, nor dogma.

His claims to contextual infallibitly are, by the very documents that proclaim it, bounded/limited by the doctrines of the Church, and the doctrines and tenets of Faith. The Faithful pronounce their Faith in the Pope to sincerely and properly (and if it take Divine Inspiration, fine) execute his office as Pope, as head of the Church, and trust him not to cock it up. *Flash to Kaa in Disney's Jungle Book singing Trust in me!*

This limited infallibility is predicated on the forebearance and trust/faith of the entirety of the Church, which is the people who make it up. Anyone not in the RCC need not worry about it, since the fundamental matter of accepting RCC tenets and doctrine is absent. Those two preconditions are necessary for the functioning of "papal infallibility."

Put on a bumper sticker: "Pope says it the rule, I'll trust he's right" only applies to a faithful member of RCC.

DR

[pchams]

Oh...Infallibility of convenience.
How fortunate. :rolleyes:

[CFLarsen]

'Believers' are wacky...

Nuff said.

---

I guess that why we call them 'believers'. They 'believe' without proof, otherwise we'd have to call them scientists.

Thank you all for your insight.

Oh, no, Albert. You won't get off that easily.

Who, within the Catholic Church, claims that the Pope is Christ incarnate, and thus infallible?

Sources, please.

[King of the Americas]

"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)."

--POPE BONIFACE VIII, BULL UNUN SANCTUM, 1302

---

That's 'close' to what Christ said, "No one gets to the Father except through me."

http://www.chick.com/reading/books/160/160_06.asp

HOWEVER, having found NO evidence of my previous ascertion, I must conceed that I was utterly and completely wrong...

Moreover, I admit that I merely 'heard' that Catholics believed this, from someone who had a lot of disdain for all religions. I can't recall ever hearing this in any of my CCD classes, when I was a sprout. (I was born and raised Catholic.) I have heard several times that the Pope is a "Christ substitute"- Christ Lite, if you will. All the authority, with none of the can-do-miracles, make the blind see, and the lame walk stuff...

I apologise for espousing crap with no evidencary support. My bad.

[CFLarsen]

Thaaaank you.

See if you can extend to other subjects you post on.

[TragicMonkey]

Thaaaank you.

See if you can extend to other subjects you post on.

Like snakes with eyelids, little girls in handcuffs, censorship, murdering air marshals, and blasphemy laws? That sort of thing?

You have zero grounds to lecture anybody on the ability to admit error.

[CFLarsen]

Like snakes with eyelids, little girls in handcuffs, censorship, murdering air marshals, and blasphemy laws? That sort of thing?

You have zero grounds to lecture anybody on the ability to admit error.

To pick the latter, how am I in error on blasphemy laws? Feel free to open a thread and point out where.

[UserGoogol]

Merely claiming infallibility of ANY kind is whooeee...

And I don't think your telepathic telekinetic comparison washes, man.

If someone ISN'T telepathic, they simply aren't. If they aren't telekinetic, they aren't.

The Pope isn't infallible when it comes to who is right and wrong, and he isn't infallible when it comes to Mary's being without sin.

That the Pope is a Man, and thus prone to error, is evidence enough for me to proounce Papal Infallibility as a Myth.

Yeah, but that's like saying "Jesus turning water into wine is a myth because water doesn't do that." A rather fundamental principle of Christianity it that sometimes God steps in and does things that would otherwise be impossible. Miracles, and all that.

The thing about miracles is that they're exceptions, and science, by its nature, deals with things in a more general sense. If you have a scientific theory, you're really saying "Every time we checked, this was true." A person who believes in miracles will say "Well yeah... but not this time." It's really hard to conclusively show they're wrong, especially in cases such as papal infalliability, where the examples aren't easily examined.

To properly debunk papal infalliability, you have to get closer to the root of the problem. You have to say that religion is by all appearances the work of non-divinely-inspired human beings, that miracles are very often bul lshit, or that the risk of being misled by a human being is more dangerous than doing something that offends God. To just say "lol, human beings don't act that way, amirite?" is really kind of lame.

Does papal infalliability go against all good sense? Maybe. But that's religion for you, isn't it?

[c4ts]

Anyone believes that 'Mary' never told a lie or threw a stone at a neighbor boy after he called he a name, is lacking some serious intellectual gravitas? Sin comes in every size, shape, and kind. I am sure I have sinned a dozen time in the very writing of this. And we are supposed to swallow that because some Pope said, decades after the fact, that Mary was without sin from the day she was conceived, that she actually WAS???

Not having met Mary I wouldn't know. I would argue that speculations about her behavior are missing the point of papal infallability. From what I understand, the whole statement is outside the realm of fallability or infallability because the Pope has the power to redefine "sin" to suit Mary's behavior.

[Jerry_ex_machina]

Well, this poster got it wrong, but Ratzy's apology was nice, I guess. I used to apologize to my sister this way: Mom: "Apologize for calling your sister 'ugly'" Me: "I'm sorry your ugly."

In my home, we have the doctrine of Jerry Infallibility. When I am speaking ex cathedra it is to be understood that I am right even when even I know I am wrong.

[RandFan]

...even when even... That's damn even.;)

[elliotfc]

"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)."

--POPE BONIFACE VIII, BULL UNUN SANCTUM, 1302

---

That's 'close' to what Christ said, "No one gets to the Father except through me."

http://www.chick.com/reading/books/160/160_06.asp

HOWEVER, having found NO evidence of my previous ascertion, I must conceed that I was utterly and completely wrong...

Moreover, I admit that I merely 'heard' that Catholics believed this, from someone who had a lot of disdain for all religions. I can't recall ever hearing this in any of my CCD classes, when I was a sprout. (I was born and raised Catholic.) I have heard several times that the Pope is a "Christ substitute"- Christ Lite, if you will. All the authority, with none of the can-do-miracles, make the blind see, and the lame walk stuff...

I apologise for espousing crap with no evidencary support. My bad.

We consider the Pope to be the Vicar of Christ.

As for infallibility...the 21 ecumenical councils have more "infallible" pull than the this history of papal infallibility, which is sketchy to say the least.

-Elliot