Papal infallibility

[AvrilNYC]

Papal infallibility seems to be very controversial as both Orthodox and Protestants attack it.

In reality the Orthdox and Protestant Churches also have bodies with final decision making authority in cases of dogma; bodies whose members are supposedly helped by the Holy Spirit to make the right decision. The only difference is that in the Catholic Church it is not an assembly or a council that has the final dogmatic authority but a person.

This Catholic dogma of papal infallibility, however, does not state either that the Pope cannot sin in his own personal life or that he is necessarily free of error, even when speaking in his official capacity, outside the specific contexts in which the dogma applies. The pope does not replace Christ in the Church , he replaces a mere mortal - Peter.

In a practical matter I have seen, on youtube, General Assemblies of Christian Churches that decide on serious religious matters (the Methodist General Conference that gathers every 4 years is an example) that degenerate into shouting matches, where people scream at each-other calling them bigots (whether to ordain openly gays is the issue that gets Bishops calling eachother names in Methodism these days). To make things worse the pro-gay bishops accused the anti-gay American bishops of bribing the African bishops by buying them cell-phones!!!

That group process that turns the decision on major religious dogmas into political lobbying and bribing is something I'm glad I don't have to deal with as a Catholic.

In the end, regardless of someone's denominational affiliation, no-one can avoid the fact a Church needs a final decision making authority for the dogmatic controversies that inevitably arise - for the Catholic Church that authority is the Pope, as the successor of Peter

[LightHammer]

Papal infallibility seems to be very controversial as both Orthodox and Protestants attack it.

In reality the Orthdox and Protestant Churches also have bodies with final decision making authority in cases of dogma; bodies whose members are supposedly helped by the Holy Spirit to make the right decision. The only difference is that in the Catholic Church it is not an assembly or a council that has the final dogmatic authority but a person.

This Catholic dogma of papal infallibility, however, does not state either that the Pope cannot sin in his own personal life or that he is necessarily free of error, even when speaking in his official capacity, outside the specific contexts in which the dogma applies. The pope does not replace Christ in the Church , he replaces a mere mortal - Peter.

In a practical matter I have seen, on youtube, General Assemblies of Christian Churches that decide on serious religious matters (the Methodist General Conference that gathers every 4 years is an example) that degenerate into shouting matches, where people scream at each-other calling them bigots (whether to ordain openly gays is the issue that gets Bishops calling eachother names in Methodism these days). To make things worse the pro-gay bishops accused the anti-gay American bishops of bribing the African bishops by buying them cell-phones!!!

That group process that turns the decision on major religious dogmas into political lobbying and bribing is something I'm glad I don't have to deal with as a Catholic.

In the end, regardless of someone's denominational affiliation, no-one can avoid the fact a Church needs a final decision making authority for the dogmatic controversies that inevitably arise - for the Catholic Church that authority is the Pope, as the successor of Peter

This is true as I ve said many times before.

None of my fellow protestants have made any legitimate claim against the fact that there must be authority in order to preserve order and prevent chaos.

Howeverthe question and the problenm with protestants isnt whther the authority of the faith exist. The real question is does that authority lie with the catholic organization.

[AvrilNYC]

Dear LightHammer

You posted "The real question is does that authority lie with the catholic organization."

I tend to be agnostic when it comes to other Churches' dogmatic authority. I obviously believe the Catholic dogmas, but I'm in no way equipped to claim that other Churches' authorities or dogmas are not legitimate.  God wills that all these Churches exist (for reasons that are not part of this thread) and only God knows the degree of dogmatic legitimacy of each Church

[LightHammer]

Dear LightHammer

You posted "The real question is does that authority lie with the catholic organization."

I tend to be agnostic when it comes to other Churches' dogmatic authority. I obviously believe the Catholic dogmas, but I'm in no way equipped to claim that other Churches' authorities or dogmas are not legitimate.  God wills that all these Churches exist (for reasons that are not part of this thread) and only God knows the degree of dogmatic legitimacy of each Church

I really need to work on being more clear.

I never said that any other denomination's dogma's or authorities arent legitimate. All I said is that the protestants who oppose the  doctrine of authority have no legitimate defense in saying that the faith doesnt have a systematic authority that resdiing in it.

[desertknight]

With the exception of the Anglicans and some high church Lutherans, no Protestant Church claims dogmatic authority, let alone anything like infallibility.  To do so would directly contradict one of the most vital principles of Protestantism if not the most vital principal...Sola Scriptura.  If not, the question isn't that a "church" has authority, but from where does it derive.

There is some misstating of the Catholic position as well.   It is a fairly typical miss-statement, but the infallibility of the Bishop of Rome is not separate from the infallibility of the Church as a whole.  The Church does exercise infallibility through the ecumenical councils as well as through the collective actions of the bishops on matters of faith and morals.   The "pope" is just a bishop, not a prophet.   He is the chief bishop, but his infallibility on specific issues derives solely from that same infallibility promised by Christ to the whole Church.

Popes speak "Ex Cathedra" on very few occasions and they do not do so out of the blue.  Such papal pronouncements are always worded collegially because that is how the Church is run, through the bishops and the priests and deacons who assist them.

[Josiah]

Papal infallibility seems to be very controversial as both Orthodox and Protestants attack it.

In reality the Orthdox and Protestant Churches also have bodies with final decision making authority in cases of dogma; bodies whose members are supposedly helped by the Holy Spirit to make the right decision. The only difference is that in the Catholic Church it is not an assembly or a council that has the final dogmatic authority but a person.

This Catholic dogma of papal infallibility, however, does not state either that the Pope cannot sin in his own personal life or that he is necessarily free of error, even when speaking in his official capacity, outside the specific contexts in which the dogma applies. The pope does not replace Christ in the Church , he replaces a mere mortal - Peter.

In a practical matter I have seen, on youtube, General Assemblies of Christian Churches that decide on serious religious matters (the Methodist General Conference that gathers every 4 years is an example) that degenerate into shouting matches, where people scream at each-other calling them bigots (whether to ordain openly gays is the issue that gets Bishops calling eachother names in Methodism these days). To make things worse the pro-gay bishops accused the anti-gay American bishops of bribing the African bishops by buying them cell-phones!!!

That group process that turns the decision on major religious dogmas into political lobbying and bribing is something I'm glad I don't have to deal with as a Catholic.

In the end, regardless of someone's denominational affiliation, no-one can avoid the fact a Church needs a final decision making authority for the dogmatic controversies that inevitably arise - for the Catholic Church that authority is the Pope, as the successor of Peter

Peter,

I see your point, but I don't think the parallel at all applies.....

In one case, we have a final point of appeal within an organization, in the other, we have a claim of infallibility/unaccountability, an incapability of error.  Apples and oranges.

Let's say I was a member of the Corvette Owners of America organization.  I'm not (for the simple reason that I don't own a Corvette!) but IF I was a member, I'd probably need to abide by the rules, covenants and regulations of the club.  Now, issues of dispute might arise within the club, and there is likely an arbitive process for this.  Some way THAT WE HAVE ALL AGREED UPON for disputes to be "settled."  Doesn't really matter what that process is (in reality, the process usually changes over time), but upon joining the club, we agree on the process in place.   Say the process rules against me.  Now, NO ONE is claiming that I'm thereby not saved before God or not a nice guy or not even the legal owner of a Corvette, they simply have arbitrated that FOR THIS CLUB, these things have been determined.  Now, is this regarded as the divine, infallible, inerrant, unaccountable, indisputable, action of God?  No.  In fact, rulings like this are often appealed or heard again and ruled differently.  The Supreme Court of the USA once ruled that slavery was okay and then that it was not, for example.  Courts overturn or rule differently with some frequency.  NO ONE claims infallibility, unaccountability, absolute unmitigated power. 

Matters of dogma are rarely ruled on in denominations.  The last time Lutherans officially altered so much as a comma in an official statement of dogma was in 1580, and that didn't change the substance of anything.  In the case of the RCC, dogma was proclaimed in 1950 - proclaiming as dogma the Assumption of Mary (a unique dogma to that singular denomination). 

IF the RCC simply said that FOR ITS OWN OFFICIAL MEMBERS, the final appeal is made to the Bishop of Rome and that his official ruling is unappealable, that would be an entirely moot issue for noncatholics and obviously not a matter of any doctrine (much less dogma).  It would be a pure polity issue, applying only to dispute resolutions within the denomination.  But that's a whole other enchalada.  What is claimed is that the Pope is (under certain situations) the INFALLIBLE Vicar of Jesus.   




.

[AvrilNYC]

Josiah,

You're comparing God's Truth (dogma) with an auto-club?? 

Your comparison is totally ridiculous and it really embarrasses even the Protestant denominations you claim to represent. Christian Truth is revealed. It comes from God, through the Holy Spirit and it's absolute. It's not the same as a bunch of guys talking about their favorite cars.

Christian Truth can only be comprehended with the help of the Holy Spirit, without the help any mere mortal is completely incapable of making a valid decision. The Catholic Church claims that the Holy Spirit guides the Pope when it makes dogmatic decisions ex Cathedra.

What's so controversial about it? All the Protestant sects I know, claim that the Holy Spirit is present at their Councils and helps their bishops make the right decisions (it's exactly the same concept). The Methodists, for example, claim that the decisions of their councils are taken with the guidance of the Holy Spirit and before each meeting the Methodist Bishops pray for that guidance.

All Christian denominations in the end, Catholics or not, rely on the Holy Spirit to understand and verbalise God's truth. It's not a popularity contest..your example shows how ignorant you are

[Josiah]

Your comparison is totally ridiculous

I agree.  To compare the DOGMA of the INFALLIBILITY of the Roman Pontiff with the final stage of conflict resolution within a denomination is inappropriate.  There is no parallel.  That was my point.





.

[AvrilNYC]

Josiah,

It would be nice if you read my posts before you answered. There are no extra points for speed

[Josiah]

Josiah,

It would be nice if you read my posts before you answered.

Of course, I did.   If you have a response, give it.

I AGREED with you, any comparison between arbitration/conflict resolution within an institution and the Bishop of Rome claiming to be the infallible Vicar of Christ is absurd.  There is no comparison, no parallel. 



.

[winsome]

As Desertknight said the infallibility of the Pope is not seperate from the infallibility of the Church as a whole.

Indeed technically referring to the infallibility of the Pope is a slightly slightly misleading way of phrasing it, although convenient.

It is not a personal charism, but a charism of the Church that he exercises personally.

There are three ways that the Church exercises this charism of infallibility:
1.   "when the whole People of God unhesitatingly holds a point of doctrine pertaining to these matters [faith and morals]