Papal Infallibility

[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.

 

[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.

Just 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.

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?

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.

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.

 

[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?

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.

 

[Mr Clingford]

Nope. They go to Hell

Damn, 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".