Papal Infallibility

[Oxymoron]

How is it that millions of Catholics can believe in such a concept? Brainwashing? Fear? Religious conviction? The pope is just a man. That's it. Just a man. Any thoughts on this? :popcorn1

[dglas]

It is a dogma of absolutes and direct hotlines to gawd. How could they not? I think it's despair more than anything else. They've been taught to hate humanity and themselves (intrinsic evil) and need something to hang their hats on - even if they have to make it up.

Anyway, it's far from a given that all self-professed catholics believe in the infallibility of gawd's rottweiller. I, personally, think he's doing a wonderful job of making himself and his dogma look ridiculous.

[Freethinker]

Once you buy into the rest of the delusion, it's easy to carry it a little further by believing in the infallibility of a man. That's trivial when compared to the whole god/angels/heaven in the clouds fairy tale. People believe the Scientology crap; Sheeple will believe anything.

[KingMerv00]

Just to be clear, the Pope's infallibility only extends to specific types of declarations. Still silly though.

[Lothian]

I was thinking similar the other day.

Prior to becoming pope was he Infallible ?
At what state does he become infallible ?

What happens where Catholicism changes.. ahem.. position ?
For example recently it was announced that you can use a condom if you have HIV. How does infallibility affect previous declarations that they could never be used. Same with the old sun going round the earth thingy. Does the church admit that certain popes were wrong, or is it just further clarification as in the popes gown is still black it is just an extremely while shade of black?

[ceo_esq]

How is it that millions of Catholics can believe in such a concept? Brainwashing? Fear? Religious conviction? The pope is just a man. That's it. Just a man. Any thoughts on this? :popcorn1

Religious conviction is the answer, I think. If you believe in God, that God founded your religion and promised to protect it from falling into serious error about religious truths, then the often-misunderstood doctrine of infallibility makes sense. The pope is just a man, as you point out, so I suppose a Catholic would ask "Why would we expect a mere man and his fallible nature to be able to stand in the way of God's promise"? The infallibility would come directly from God, and only attach incidentally to the man.

[Darth Rotor]

Once you buy into the rest of the delusion, it's easy to carry it a little further by believing in the infallibility of a man. That's trivial when compared to the whole god/angels/heaven in the clouds fairy tale. People believe the Scientology crap; Sheeple will believe anything.
I suggest you research the explicit doctrinal definition of Papal Infallability before making a remark like that. It is clearly defined in Catholic Doctrine, and is indeed, as KingMerv points out, limited to matters of doctrine and canon. It does not extend, for example, to internal medicine.

It is a mistake is to misinterpret the two line title, or label, for the actual detail of that doctrinal tenet. ( I have my reservations on the Pope's status and expertise.)

DR

[Oxymoron]

Right. I have had so many conversations with Catholics in the past. One question they can not seem to answer is, What makes this man, the Pope, so much more special than you and I, that he is closer to god? Or is infallible. I usually end up doing this :catfight: and a little of this :covereyes . I just can't seem to get it.

And Lothian: exactly, when does this man become infallible? sheesh.

[Oxymoron]

http://www.catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp

here's a link I've found relating to the definition, according to the Catholic Church.:)

edit: what I found interesting is a lot of Catholics I've spoken with have this "misunderstanding of impeccability and infallibility". I found this definition to be laced with ambiguity and backpeddling.

[Marquis de Carabas]

The Pope is seen as the head of God's Church, appointed by God (or at least tacitly approved). He is believed to be a mouthpiece for an infallible God. It is not that the man is always right, it is that the God will not allow falsehoods (on issues of doctrine, as noted above) to be spoken by his church's earthly head.

Belief in papal infallibility, given the premises of a Catholic faith, is just a logical conclusion. Believing the premises is, of course, another matter.

[wahrheit]

*snip* One question they can not seem to answer is, What makes this man, the Pope, so much more special than you and I, that he is closer to god?
Which is exactly one of the reasons why I turned atheist when I was a kid. The moment I realized this guy did not come down from the sky with a flash of lightning, landing on the throne in Vatican city, but was the mere result of his dad and mom having sexual intercourse - that moment I quit taking part in any religious stuff.

[bobcarp]

"A celibate clergy is an especially good idea, because it tends to suppress any hereditary propensity toward fanaticism." -Carl Sagan

[Oxymoron]

Which is exactly one of the reasons why I turned atheist when I was a kid. The moment I realized this guy did not come down from the sky with a flash of lightning, landing on the throne in Vatican city, but was the mere result of his dad and mom having sexual intercourse - that moment I quit taking part in any religious stuff.

wait, are you saying Mary wasn't a virgin? :yikes:

I recently dated someone who actually had two, 3 foot statues of Jesus and Mary IN HIS HOUSE. You should have seen the color drain from his face when I told him I joined this site. (maybe that's why things didn't work out, LOL.) :D

[Tricky]

Infallible? You have got to be kidding. Those guys have screwed me around so many times I can't count them. Plus I keep getting annoying emails from them about my account. They've caused me to have to change my credit card number and miss e-bay auctions and...

What?

I thought you said PayPal infallibility.


Never mind.

[KingMerv00]

wait, are you saying Mary wasn't a virgin? :yikes:

I recently dated someone who actually had two, 3 foot statues of Jesus and Mary IN HIS HOUSE. You should have seen the color drain from his face when I told him I joined this site. (maybe that's why things didn't work out, LOL.) :D

There is a 1 foot tall statute of Jesus's terrestrial father in my apartment. Not sure why. Not mine...don't think it is my roomate's. A grandparent may have snuck it under the radar.

I think I'll leave it there though. I sorta like the irony.

[Oxymoron]

Infallible? You have got to be kidding. Those guys have screwed me around so many times I can't count them. Plus I keep getting annoying emails from them about my account. They've caused me to have to change my credit card number and miss e-bay auctions and...

What?

I thought you said PayPal infallibility.


Never mind.


:D

[jmercer]

Papal infallibility extends only to ex cathedra statements; and there have been a very limited number of those over the years. Supposedly, ex cathedra pronouncements aren't made by the Pope, but are direct statements by God though the Pope in the form of divine inspiration. (Yes, I suppose that makes the Pope a medium in those cases.)

Regarding how the Pope is chosen; presumably, God gets what He wants by causing the Cardinals to vote for the candidate of choice; it's interesting to note that several Popes have died immediately after donning the robes - when I pointed that out, the explanation I got was that when the wrong guy is chosen (free will), God takes him "home" to permit the "right guy" to ascend the throne.

Hey, don't shoot me - I'm only the messenger. :D

Love the avatar, Oxy - is that your real eye? ;)

[Freethinker]

I suggest you research the explicit doctrinal definition of Papal Infallability before making a remark like that. It is clearly defined in Catholic Doctrine, and is indeed, as KingMerv points out, limited to matters of doctrine and canon. It does not extend, for example, to internal medicine.

It is a mistake is to misinterpret the two line title, or label, for the actual detail of that doctrinal tenet. ( I have my reservations on the Pope's status and expertise.)

DR

Regardless of any restrictive definition of his infallibility, belief in it is still delusional. My extended family (including inlaws etc.) includes 3 active priests, 2 retired nuns and an Archbishop. My family tree is filled with them on the side branches as far as it has been traced, so you may rest assured I'm aware of Catholic doctrine.

Whatever the pope speaks ex cathedra is the irrevocable doctrine of the church, inspired by god, and implemented by the holy spirit. Even if a future ex cathedra declaration contradicts it, it doesn't contradict it because they can't by definition.

[Darth Rotor]

Regardless of any restrictive definition of his infallibility, belief in it is still delusional. My extended family (including inlaws etc.) includes 3 active priests, 2 retired nuns and an Archbishop. My family tree is filled with them on the side branches as far as it has been traced, so you may rest assured I'm aware of Catholic doctrine.

Thanks for clearing that up, it was not self evident in your post. :)

DR

[Oxymoron]

Papal infallibility extends only to ex cathedra statements; and there have been a very limited number of those over the years. Supposedly, ex cathedra pronouncements aren't made by the Pope, but are direct statements by God though the Pope in the form of divine inspiration. (Yes, I suppose that makes the Pope a medium in those cases.)



Regarding how the Pope is chosen; presumably, God gets what He wants by causing the Cardinals to vote for the candidate of choice; it's interesting to note that several Popes have died immediately after donning the robes - when I pointed that out, the explanation I got was that when the wrong guy is chosen (free will), God takes him "home" to permit the "right guy" to ascend the throne.

Hey, don't shoot me - I'm only the messenger. :D

Love the avatar, Oxy - is that your real eye? ;)

well, maybe it's my inner critical eye. :p

[Anacoluthon64]

Yes, yes, papal infallibility: its limited range of applicability and the very few occasions on which it has actually been invoked - such are the preoccupations of closet apologists. The real issue is why, in the first place, it was deemed necessary to invest the pontiff with a self-serving property that runs so completely counter to common experience, and why it is so passionately pressed and perpetuated.

The papacy is the mediaeval Hollywood. Infallibility is People magazine.

'Luthon64

[jmercer]

Actually, the reason for it's institution was - iirc - to deal with heresy and schisms within the Church hierarchy. "Having the last word" - with a vengeance. :D

[Anacoluthon64]

Actually, the reason for it's institution was - iirc - to deal with heresy and schisms within the Church hierarchy. "Having the last word" - with a vengeance. :DJust my point - it had to be manufactured for reasons of its own survival. Otherwise the fans would have left for Bollywood instead of sticking with Hollywood.

'Luthon64

[Darth Rotor]

Yes, yes, papal infallibility: its limited range of applicability and the very few occasions on which it has actually been invoked - such are the preoccupations of closet apologists. The real issue is why, in the first place, it was deemed necessary to invest the pontiff with a self-serving property that runs so completely counter to common experience, and why it is so passionately pressed and perpetuated.

The papacy is the mediaeval Hollywood. Infallibility is People magazine.

'Luthon64
IIRC, the motivation was the army once led by Gieuseppe Garibaldi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giuseppe_Garibaldi).

When the Franco-Prussian War broke out in July 1870, Italian public opinion heavily favored the Prussians, and many Italians attempted to sign up as volunteers at the Prussian embassy in Florence. After the French garrison was recalled from Rome, the Italian Army captured the Papal States without Garibaldi's assistance. Following the wartime collapse of the Second French Empire at the battle of Sedan, Garibaldi, undaunted by the recent hostility shown to him by the men of Napoleon III, switched his support to the newly-declared French Third Republic.


DR

[ceo_esq]

Supposedly, ex cathedra pronouncements aren't made by the Pope, but are direct statements by God though the Pope in the form of divine inspiration.

Is that right? I didn't understand the doctrine to suppose such a thing. My understanding was that the Church supposes that God will arrange things, as necessary, to ensure that the Church does not promulgate a false doctrine. That doesn't require that God make any statements directly through the pope, although it might require that God intervene to prevent him from declaring ex cathedra that a false dogma were true, or vice versa. I don't think ex cathedra pronouncements are considered to be inspired.

Seems a little more like Jim Carrey in Liar, Liar than a case of directly channeling the Supreme Being.


The real issue is why, in the first place, it was deemed necessary to invest the pontiff with a self-serving property that runs so completely counter to common experience, and why it is so passionately pressed and perpetuated.

I don't think it was "deemed necessary to invest" him with this property. First of all, in a sense it's not really a property of the man; one supposes it's merely a side effect of an intrinsic property of God's (keeping his promises, or whatever) - assuming arguendo the underlying premises, of course. And granting those same premises, infallibility is a perfectly common-sense result. (As was already pointed out, it's those premises that are problematic, not the deduction of papal infallibility from them.)

I'm not sure why you think papal infallibility (as opposed to the infallibility of the ordinary Magisterium) is especially "passionately pressed and perpetuated". (Nice alliteration, though!)

[Kochanski]

How is it that millions of Catholics can believe in such a concept? Brainwashing? Fear? Religious conviction? The pope is just a man. That's it. Just a man. Any thoughts on this? :popcorn1

Same reason that they believe the rest of the hooey. It is a package. Join religion and don't think. Believe what you are told. Don't question, not allowed to question.

I was raised RC and am atheist now (was probably atheist then but what does a kid know when she is surrounded by Catholics). None of it made any sense to me ;) But then it doesn't have to make sense if you believe.

[jmercer]

Is that right? I didn't understand the doctrine to suppose such a thing. My understanding was that the Church supposes that God will arrange things, as necessary, to ensure that the Church does not promulgate a false doctrine. That doesn't require that God make any statements directly through the pope, although it might require that God intervene to prevent him from declaring ex cathedra that a false dogma were true, or vice versa. I don't think ex cathedra pronouncements are considered to be inspired.

My understanding (which could easily be wrong) is that ex cathedra doctrinal announcements are inspired by God through the Pope; and that any false doctrine proposed by the Holy See would be prevented either by persuasion of the Pope by the committee of Cardinals charged with maintaining orthodoxy, or the divinely timed death of the Pope planning on pronouncing the "incorrect" doctrine. In fact, the Jesuits I was discussing this with made mention of a couple of doctrines that would have been proposed ex cathedra - but the Pope died prior to the pronouncement.

(IIRC, some historical books covering the Church have suggested that on occasion the timeliness of a Pope's demise may have been less than divine in origin. Given medieval politics that's quite possible. Many of the Church's clergy were noble sons that stood no chance of inheriting either due to the number of others between them and their inheritance - or because they were bastard offspring. They were given a simple choice; join the Church and publicly renounce all claims on their inheritance, or die. They still got the "benefit" of seeing how the politics of the day worked, however, plus access to secular powers of the day - and in return, the secular powers had preferential influence with the ever-growing authority of the Church. It wouldn't surprise me at all to find out if several of the "Princes of the Church" got to their positions largely based on secular influence... and perhaps even more concrete assistance from relatives in exchange for various ecclesiastical favors.)

Again, I don't know that there's an authoritative statement that can be made on this due to the nature of the subject. Unless the Pope makes an ex cathedra statement concerning it, of course. :D


Seems a little more like Jim Carrey in Liar, Liar than a case of directly channeling the Supreme Being.

A reasonable description; divine inspiration would seem to be a less intrusive method than simply taking over the steering wheel, as it were. :)

[drkitten]

(IIRC, some historical books covering the Church have suggested that on occasion the timeliness of a Pope's demise may have been less than divine in origin. Given medieval politics that's quite possible. [...])

Except that, of course, there's nothing to prevent God from using a terrestrial murderer as an instrument of His Will.

If you buy into the notion of an omni* God, then it's very easy for Him to make sure that anything that goes out under His Official Signature (as it were) actually represents His Own Opinions. Hell, I'm hardly omni*, but I at least try to proofread whatever goes out under my signature, and if necessary I will re-type a letter or something....

I find it astonishing how many people -- theists and atheists alike -- seem to have a conception of an omnipotent and omniscient God who nevertheless isn't as competent at his job as any half decent CEO.....

[jmercer]

Heh - as always, Dr. K, good point. :)

So no matter how you slice it - divine heart attack, divine stroke, divine poison, divine knife-in-the-back, it's still the divine will being done. :D

[Mr Clingford]

There is a flaw in the reasoning; some popes have been so unpleasant that surely God would have wanted to avoid their company for as long as possible and prolonged their earthly lives?

[Moochie]

How is it that millions of Catholics can believe in such a concept? Brainwashing? Fear? Religious conviction? The pope is just a man. That's it. Just a man. Any thoughts on this? :popcorn1

Well, people of the faith are often referred to as sheep. Sheep need a shepherd, do they not?

Don't know if you have much contact with a broad range of the GP (General Public) or not, but if you do, you'll soon see that there are a great many unsophisticated, insecure folks out there who like nothing better than to be shown the way by a daddy figure.

Who's your daddy?

M.

[jmercer]

There is a flaw in the reasoning; some popes have been so unpleasant that surely God would have wanted to avoid their company for as long as possible and prolonged their earthly lives?

Nope. They go to Hell, just like everyone else who pisses off God. :D

[Mr Clingford]

Nope. They go to Hell :DDamn, you've got me there!

[drkitten]

There is a flaw in the reasoning; some popes have been so unpleasant that surely God would have wanted to avoid their company for as long as possible and prolonged their earthly lives?

That's why purgatory exists.....

[senorpogo]

Papal infallibility, on it's own, seems ridiculous, but it kind of makes sense once you see it placed alongside all the rest of the religious mumbo-jumbo that accompanies it.

If....
1.) You believe in God
2.) You believe that God created the church here on earth
3.) You believe that the Pope is the head honcho of that Church

Then it's not so far-fetched in such a context to believe that God would sometimes beam infallible doctrine to his church. And who would be better to receive that transmission than the head of his church? If I believe that #1, #2, and #3 are possible, why not #4, #5, and so on?

That's a big issue I have with religion as a whole: one tiny, seemingly innocent logical leap begets another and another. Pretty soon, you believe the world is 6,000 years old and you're strapping a bomb to your son's chest to fulfill the words of some dumb old book.

[Almo]

On the whole I have found Catholics (in the US) to be a much more reasonable crowd than many other Christian branches. Anyone who believes the weird things of their own religion is just having the blinder issue. Singling out Catholics as particularly weird makes no sense. They just make easier targets since their church is very large, wide spread, and powerful.

[Freethinker]

On the whole I have found Catholics (in the US) to be a much more reasonable crowd than many other Christian branches.

Most Catholics aren't very religious. That may sound strange to some, but it will ring true to most Catholics. Probably not uncommon for a Catholic to not own a bible. I attended Catholic schools and only came across them in the church, rarely in the school, even in religion class.

[Darth Rotor]

That's a big issue I have with religion as a whole: one tiny, seemingly innocent logical leap begets another and another. Pretty soon, you believe the world is 6,000 years old and you're strapping a bomb to your son's chest to fulfill the words of some dumb old book.
So, are you saying that Islamists are Young Earth Creationists?

DR

[Tanstaafl]

So, are you saying that Islamists are Young Earth Creationists?

DR

I think they generally are. They do accept the Genesis story as far as I know. In fact many of the OT stories are repeated, almost verbatim, in the Koran.

[senorpogo]

So, are you saying that Islamists are Young Earth Creationists?

DR

I wasn't trying to suggest that. I just wanted to be an equal opportunity offender and bash two holy-scripture inspired beliefs that I detest. Probably should have used "or" rather than "and".

[Windom]

How is it that millions of Catholics can believe in such a concept? Brainwashing? Fear? Religious conviction? The pope is just a man. That's it. Just a man. Any thoughts on this? :popcorn1

I doubt any sane catholic still believes it. It's more like relic from middle-ages, nice tradition. I mean, for example, lots of catholics use contraception and don't give a damn about Popes opinion. They clearly don't believe Pope is infallable.

[The Atheist]

I doubt any sane catholic still believes it. It's more like relic from middle-ages, nice tradition. I mean, for example, lots of catholics use contraception and don't give a damn about Popes opinion. They clearly don't believe Pope is infallable.It's not even 150 years, never mind the Middle Ages!

I think youll find that most Catholics actually do agree on the infallibility bit, but it's very rarely used, as already pointed out.

Only god is infallible, apparently, hence the divine nature of the pope's ex-cathedra doctrinal statements. Raises the intersting conept that if god's infallible, how did he #### up man so badly?

[Mr Clingford]

Only god is infallible, apparently, hence the divine nature of the pope's ex-cathedra doctrinal statements. Raises the intersting conept that if god's infallible, how did he #### up man so badly?God didn't. Woman did. (my achy breaky heart - and put that trouser snake away).

[The Atheist]

God didn't. Woman did. (my achy breaky heart - and put that trouser snake away).Yeah, well I'm waiting for someone at the Ship to answer that one. They have a thread about the current trend of apologising for past transgressions - slavery, etc. - and I'm waiting for all women to apologise for Eve dropping us all in the crap!

[jmercer]

It's not even 150 years, never mind the Middle Ages!

I think youll find that most Catholics actually do agree on the infallibility bit, but it's very rarely used, as already pointed out.

Only god is infallible, apparently, hence the divine nature of the pope's ex-cathedra doctrinal statements. Raises the intersting conept that if god's infallible, how did he #### up man so badly?

I'm a nominal Catholic; I find the idea ridiculous, and I certainly don't believe in it. Never have, in fact.

TA, I'm sorry, but I have to point out that your date for this is unintentionally misleading; the doctrine of Papal Infallibility was declared during the first Vatican Council in 1870, which does indeed make the declaration less than 150 years old.

However, declaration of doctrine is not the "beginning" of doctrine; it's the formal ruling on something challenged within the faith of the church, formally stating the Church's position on something to prevent (or resolve) confusion regarding it.

In effect, the Vatican I declaration of Papal Infallibility clarifies the authority of ex cathedra statements of all Popes from the start of the Church onward. Grandfathering is an art in the RC. :D

A good explanation of this can be found here (http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/papac2.htm).

[ceo_esq]

However, declaration of doctrine is not the "beginning" of doctrine; it's the formal ruling on something challenged within the faith of the church, formally stating the Church's position on something to prevent (or resolve) confusion regarding it.

In effect, the Vatican I declaration of Papal Infallibility clarifies the authority of ex cathedra statements of all Popes from the start of the Church onward. Grandfathering is an art in the RC. :D

A good explanation of this can be found here (http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/papac2.htm).

Thanks for the link. Not only does that declaration grandfather all the doctrines from before, but it apparently was a clarification that the doctrine of papal infallibility itself had always been accepted and practiced. Seems like there's no such thing as a new Catholic dogma, the way they spin it.

[Moochie]

How is it that millions of Catholics can believe in such a concept? Brainwashing? Fear? Religious conviction? The pope is just a man. That's it. Just a man. Any thoughts on this? :popcorn1

Well, people of the faith are often referred to as sheep. Sheep need a shepherd, do they not?

Don't know if you have much contact with a broad range of the GP (General Public) or not, but if you do, you'll soon see that there are a great many unsophisticated, insecure folks out there who like nothing better than to be shown the way by a daddy figure.

Who's your daddy?

M.

[Oxymoron]

On the whole I have found Catholics (in the US) to be a much more reasonable crowd than many other Christian branches. Anyone who believes the weird things of their own religion is just having the blinder issue. Singling out Catholics as particularly weird makes no sense. They just make easier targets since their church is very large, wide spread, and powerful.


Have you ever driven through Queens, New York? Or Brooklyn and the Bronx for that matter. You see statues adorning just about every lawn, decorated with lights and such, as if it were some sort of shrine. I'm not trying to single out Catholics as the only weird religion out there. Having the Pope in the news a lot lately led me to the desire to strike up dialogue concerning his position within the Church. I've also lived in Georgia, where you have bible beating baptists and snake handlers, believe me, I know weird when I see it. Still, a religion who thinks a woman who gave birth is a virgin, or even better gave birth to God's only son, (snicker), or needs to pray to different Saints to have different problems solved, is well.....undeniably un-reasonable. ;)

[Oxymoron]

Yeah, well I'm waiting for someone at the Ship to answer that one. They have a thread about the current trend of apologising for past transgressions - slavery, etc. - and I'm waiting for all women to apologise for Eve dropping us all in the crap!

"Hell hath no fury like a woman scorn". Maybe Eve did it deliberately.:p

[jmercer]

Thanks for the link. Not only does that declaration grandfather all the doctrines from before, but it apparently was a clarification that the doctrine of papal infallibility itself had always been accepted and practiced. Seems like there's no such thing as a new Catholic dogma, the way they spin it.

Pretty much right, ceo. It's not like they have a choice in the matter anymore, really. After deleting conflicting texts held by the Church over the centuries as well as re-writing (or re-interpreting, if you wish) other texts that were kept in order to address the more glaring inconsistencies, the Church is now in an unfortunate position of having to insist that it's previous dogmatic beliefs are all correct, and always have been.

Any failure to do so will result in the entire house of cards falling.

The out they have (and maintain) is that while the doctrine is infallible, priests are not; therefore interpretation of doctrine can be rewritten for anything. The only thing you can't get a "backsie" on is an ex cathedra Papal decree... which is why such decrees are infrequent, and very carefully considered these days.

One slip and it'll sink the ship. :D

[The Atheist]

TA, I'm sorry, but I have to point out that your date for this is unintentionally misleading; the doctrine of Papal Infallibility was declared during the first Vatican Council in 1870, which does indeed make the declaration less than 150 years old.Cheers, I didn't realise the cheeky pricks backdated it.

Wonder if they do that with the pope's pay.

[jmercer]

Have you ever driven through Queens, New York? Or Brooklyn and the Bronx for that matter. You see statues adorning just about every lawn, decorated with lights and such, as if it were some sort of shrine. I'm not trying to single out Catholics as the only weird religion out there. Having the Pope in the news a lot lately led me to the desire to strike up dialogue concerning his position within the Church. I've also lived in Georgia, where you have bible beating baptists and snake handlers, believe me, I know weird when I see it. Still, a religion who thinks a woman who gave birth is a virgin, or even better gave birth to God's only son, (snicker), or needs to pray to different Saints to have different problems solved, is well.....undeniably un-reasonable.

It's not as weird as you might think, Oxy. I believe you mentioned to me in a PM that you've taken comparative religion; if so, look at the Catholic Church's God as a three-aspect deity, and the Saints as lesser Gods in a pantheon that have influence with the "Big Kahuna", and you'll find it's not so different than a number of other pantheistic religions. (You can also view the Martyrs as demigods to make the comparison complete.)

If you look back at the Church's history, a lot of Church beliefs are engineered to make the transition of "converts" from various so-called pagan religions easier for the "converts" by retaining familiar symbols, such as Christmas wreaths, Christmas trees, holly garlands, etc. It's not an accident that Christmas more-or-less coincides with the pagan winter solstice celebration, nor is it accidental that Easter coincides with various spring rites of various old European paganistic religions.

Creating a pantheon to further the growth and influence of the early Church would hardly have been a bump in the theological road for early Christians; in fact, it's distinctly possible that the twelve Disciples were popularized in the bible specifically to compete with the Roman pantheon of Gods and Goddesses.

[The Atheist]

"Hell hath no fury like a woman scorn". Maybe Eve did it deliberately.:pHa! Scorned?

How could Adam have scorned her? There was no-one to scorn her for and nowehere for her to be scorned. Face it, you're part of an evil, snake-loving, forbidden-fruit-eating, troublemaking breed!

[jmercer]

Ha! Scorned?

How could Adam have scorned her? There was no-one to scorn her for and nowehere for her to be scorned. Face it, you're part of an evil, snake-loving, forbidden-fruit-eating, troublemaking breed!

Thank God for that. :D

[Marquis de Carabas]

Ha! Scorned?

How could Adam have scorned her? There was no-one to scorn her for...

I think you're forgetting the goats.

[jmercer]

Not that you'd let us forget it for long, MdC. :D

[Oxymoron]

It's not as weird as you might think, Oxy. I believe you mentioned to me in a PM that you've taken comparative religion; if so, look at the Catholic Church's God as a three-aspect deity, and the Saints as lesser Gods in a pantheon that have influence with the "Big Kahuna", and you'll find it's not so different than a number of other pantheistic religions. (You can also view the Martyrs as demigods to make the comparison complete.)

If you look back at the Church's history, a lot of Church beliefs are engineered to make the transition of "converts" from various so-called pagan religions easier for the "converts" by retaining familiar symbols, such as Christmas wreaths, Christmas trees, holly garlands, etc. It's not an accident that Christmas more-or-less coincides with the pagan winter solstice celebration, nor is it accidental that Easter coincides with various spring rites of various old European paganistic religions.

Creating a pantheon to further the growth and influence of the early Church would hardly have been a bump in the theological road for early Christians; in fact, it's distinctly possible that the twelve Disciples were popularized in the bible specifically to compete with the Roman pantheon of Gods and Goddesses.

I stand possibly corrected. "Accepted weird beliefs" should have been my opening statement to that arguement. However, ...touche.:p

[Oxymoron]

Ha! Scorned?

How could Adam have scorned her? There was no-one to scorn her for and nowehere for her to be scorned. Face it, you're part of an evil, snake-loving, forbidden-fruit-eating, troublemaking breed!


Well. I suppose I can't argue history according to "man". :D

[Anacoluthon64]

I don't think it was "deemed necessary to invest" him with this property. First of all, in a sense it's not really a property of the man; ...Agreed: it is a property of his - and there shan't be a "her" in this context - portfolio. It all still comes down to the same brass tacks, though.

... one supposes it's merely a side effect of an intrinsic property of God's (keeping his promises, or whatever) - assuming arguendo the underlying premises, of course. And granting those same premises, infallibility is a perfectly common-sense result. (As was already pointed out, it's those premises that are problematic, not the deduction of papal infallibility from them.)Which side are you arguing here? And how does papal infallibility follow from god's assumed properties? After all, he (the pope) is still human in all other essential ways; even the RC spin doctors are apparently reluctant to make so bold as to suggest differently. A leaky pipe is not the most efficient way of conveying water.

I'm not sure why you think papal infallibility (as opposed to the infallibility of the ordinary Magisterium) is especially "passionately pressed and perpetuated". (Nice alliteration, though!)Perhaps the poetic exuberance that you note got the better of me and the case was consequently somewhat overstated. My point, however, is that the RC is in a delicious quandary: should she sustain such pretensions to inerrancy or boldly announce her own essentially human frailty? So far, she's decided to go where inertia takes her. But inertia is what makes collisions traumatic.

'Luthon64

[KingMerv00]

What do you suppose would happen if the Pope officially declared himself to be always wrong? Would the paradox open a rift in spacetime?

[Anacoluthon64]

What do you suppose would happen if the Pope officially declared himself to be always wrong?This would be a wicked twist on Russell's Paradox.

'Luthon64

[Oxymoron]

What do you suppose would happen if the Pope officially declared himself to be always wrong? Would the paradox open a rift in spacetime?

First the Vatican would implode. This of course would open the gate to Hell. Which in turn would unleash the beast. Which would eat all non-believers like a turkey leg at Thanksgiving dinner. (er...So I've been divinely inspired to report.):D

[ceo_esq]

Which side are you arguing here? And how does papal infallibility follow from god's assumed properties? After all, he (the pope) is still human in all other essential ways; even the RC spin doctors are apparently reluctant to make so bold as to suggest differently.

What were the sides again? Seriously, though, what I meant was this: Catholics believe that Christ promised that the Church would be preserved from serious (dogmatic) error. The properties of God (as viewed by Catholics) logically imply that such a promise can and will be kept. Since the nature of the Church is such that a false ex cathedra pronouncement from the pope would result in a violation of God's promise, it follows that God will not permit the pope to make an ex cathedra pronouncement if it would be a false one. What's driving that putative outcome isn't the qualities of the man in Rome; it's God's supposed properties of truthfulness, power and so forth. Such a God could prevent the pope from making a false ex cathedra statement of faith in any number of ways that would not confer any superhuman wisdom or insight on the man himself; accordingly, nothing about the doctrine of papal infallibility per se requires anyone to think there's anything superhuman about the pope - just about God.

Still working from the Catholic perspective for the sake of argument, let's suppose that the pope were the sort of person so ignorant of or indifferent to God's will that any ex cathedra statement he made would be either wrong, or else right only by sheer lucky guess. Such a pope could still be infallible within the meaning of the doctrine of infallibility, because God could either prevent him from speaking ex cathedra at all, or else let only the lucky guesses slip past the pope's lips. That wouldn't make the pope deserving of any special credit, but it would leave Christ's promise intact.

[jmercer]

An exercise that I've found useful when dealing with organized religions of all sorts is to set aside claims of supernatural preference and to review the organization's actions as secular rather than religious.

I've found that when you do this, you suddenly find some rather practical and worldly probable motives for many of the actions taken. :D

In example, successful large corporations go to great lengths to imply that the president and/or CEO of a given organization is inspired, genius, infallible - usually without using any of those terms overtly, of course. The primary objective is to inspire investor and employee loyalty. Viewed in this light, the Church's motives for perpetuating the myth of infallibility (both Papal and doctrinal) is virtually identical to corporations in that goal; ultimately, the focus is to inspire faith in both the organization and it's leadership to all concerned.

While any analogy can be taken too far, divorcing the Church from "Divine Inspiration" and then re-examining it's historical and current actions can yield some rather surprising - and sadly, often cynical - results. Just thought I'd suggest it. :)