Papal Infallibility

[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?

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.

A good explanation of this can be found here.

 

[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.

A good explanation of this can be found here.

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?

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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

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!

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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".

 

[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?