Posted on 06/13/2015 12:57:46 PM PDT by RnMomof7
In 897 AD, Pope Stephen VII had Pope Formosus’ body exhumed and put on trial at the infamous Cadaver Synod, during which the corpse was found guilty, and stripped of his papal vestments. Pope Theodore II later convened a synod and overturned Pope Stephen’s findings, as did Pope John IX after him. But later, Pope Sergius III overturned the rulings of Theodore II and John IX, and reaffirmed the conviction of Formosus. Perhaps Formosus’ corpse will find some little comfort in the knowledge that it is still—at least for now—listed on Rome’s “unbroken line of popes” currently on display at the Vatican.
We find a papal corpse a particularly fitting background image for this post on infallibility’s fatal flaw. The Roman Pontiff, in order that the Church may share in Christ’s infallibility, says the Catechism, “enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 891). But there is one problem: nobody knows when the Pope is speaking infallibly, nobody knows how often a pope has spoken infallibly, and nobody knows what the criteria are for when a pope is speaking infallibly. It is indeed a fleeting comfort to be assured that your teacher is teaching infallibly only at times when he is teaching infallibly, but that there is no way to know what those times are.
To give you an idea of how severe this problem is, we invite you to consider Keenan’s 1860 Catechism of the Catholic Church, published ten years before Vatican Council I declared that the Roman Pontiff enjoys the charism of infallibility. This is what Keenan’s Catechism said of the ancient and historical gift bestowed by Christ on “His” Roman Catholic Church since Peter:
(Q.) Must not Catholics believe the Pope himself to be infallible?
(A.) This is a Protestant invention: it is no article of the Catholic faith: no decision of his can oblige under pain of heresy, unless it be received and enforced by the teaching body, that is by the bishops of the Church.
(Q.) What dogma was defined in this Council?
(A.) The dogma of Papal Infallibility; that the Pope when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals, is possessed of that infallibility with which our Redeemer endowed the church.
Of course, the problem for Roman Catholics does not end there. I highlighted this issue in the late 1990s in an article called Quid Pro Canon. The details are worked out more fully there, but to illustrate the problem, different Roman Catholic apologists believe differently about how many times a Pope has spoken infallibly:
Scott Hahn: two
Tim Staples: at least four
Adam Miller: eleven
Leslie Rumble: eighteen
To complicate matters, Rumble held that two of the eighteen are “of the utmost authority, [but] still fall short of technical requirements” for infallibility, and another two “very probably comply with the requirements” for infallibility.
Perhaps if there were an infallible list of infallible statements, this would be simpler, and the Roman apologists could come to an agreement. But it gets worse: there is no “official” list of criteria with which it may be determined that a papal statement is infallible. The different Roman Catholic sources indicate the severity of the problem:
Fr. William Most: two criteria
Apologist Scott Butler: three criteria
Catholic Encyclopedia: four criteria
Roman apologists do not even agree on the occasions that would induce a Pope to exercise the charism of infallibility. Apologist Karl Keating says the Pope only exercises it to resolve doctrinal disputes. Apologist Scott Hahn says the exact opposite:
Now, many people think that this ex cathedra, this official papal pronouncement defining dogma, is sort of like the ultimate way in which the pope resolves doctrinal controversies. That is the opposite of the truth. The pope is not an umpire. (emphasis added)
In sum, Roman apologists themselves, as eagerly as they defend Papal Infallibility, do not know how many times he has exercised it, do not agree on why he exercises it, and do not know how to determine whether a pope has exercised it. All they know is that he has it.
We admire the tenacity of those who still want to argue for Papal Infallibility, and we especially appreciate how they make our argument for us. A few years back, “The Catholic Voyager,” in a blog post called Fallacies on Infallibility, attempted to rebut Quid Pro Canon by demonstrating the ease with which a Roman Catholic can identify infallible teachings. For example, he wrote, “a reasonable Catholic,” using criteria that he does not explicitly identify, should be able to read Munificentissimus Deus and determine on his own that it is infallible. Further, in Sacerdotii Nostri Primoridia, Pope John XXIII said that Ineffabilis Deus was infallible. “The Voyager” writes,
These examples are enough to demonstrate that infallibility can be identified in the Church whether or not one theologian or another may believe some other doctrine was not “technically” defined infallibly.
Voyager makes our point for us. He appeals to Sacerdotii Nostri Primoridia, which was not an infallible proclamation, as evidence that Ineffabilis Deus was proclaimed infallibly. If it is so easy to identify infallibility in the Church, why does “one theologian or another” disagree on whether some doctrine was “technically” defined infallibly? If a “reasonable Catholic” can determine it on his own, why did Rumble include two proclamations that probably are, and two that might not be, infallible? Why not just say they are, or they are not, infallible? As evidence of how difficult this is for practicing Catholics, most of whom probably consider themselves “reasonable,” consider the debate at US Catholic about whether Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was defined infallibly by John Paul II:
When John Paul II ruled out the ordination of women in Ordinatio sacerdotalis, he used the expression “definitive,” but did not use the formula that would signal an infallible teaching; in fact the word “infallible” doesn’t appear anywhere in the document. … Cardinal Ratzinger, as prefect for the Congregation for the doctrine of the Faith, argued in a response to a question about Ordinatio sacerdotalis that the teaching was part of the “deposit of faith” and therefore an infallible teaching of the “ordinary and universal magisterium”—although he knows full well that’s not how infalliblility works; something can’t be declared infallible by a Vatican office.
We are reminded here of Fr. William Most’s appeal to an unofficially published decree from the Holy Office in order to prove that it had been the intent of multiple popes and councils to declare a doctrine to be infallible, “for these texts show the intention to make it definitive by their repetition.” Of course, unofficially published decrees are not infallible. They are not even officially published! Perhaps “the Catholic Voyager” can offer the assistance of “a reasonable Catholic” to William Most and US Catholic, as well as to Hahn, Staples, Keating, Butler, Rumble, Miller and the Catholic Encyclopedia by providing a list of Infallible Papal statements, since it is so easy for “a reasonable Catholic” “to demonstrate that infallibility can be identified in the Church.”
The Voyager ultimately refuses to provide any infallible list of infallible papal statements, as must every honest Roman apologist. The list exists nowhere in the “deposit of faith,” of which Rome is ostensibly the guardian. Therefore, to produce such a list would require that a Roman Catholic believe in Sola Verbum Dei plus something that is not contained anywhere in the Verbum Dei—making Sola Verbum Dei self-defeating.
“The Voyager” simply states that Rome does not need to produce such an infallible list, because that would be “asking God to certify God.” Very well. Neither will Protestants bow to Rome’s requests to prove from the Scripture that the 66-book canon is the canon of Scripture. Since the Scripture as contained in the 66-book canon is the Word of God, that would be “asking God to certify God.” The Voyager thinks by this that he has caught us in the logical fallacy of tu quoque. Hardly. He has merely caught us measuring Rome by her own standards, and finding her wanting.
I remember sitting in the library (at a Proddie seminary!) reading that book, wondering what planet this guy lived on.
To use the technical term from Catholic theology: BINGO!
That's why someone will, for example, post all sorts of lies and slanders about the Catholic teaching on relics as proof of how horrible Catholicism is while at the same time selling blessed prayer hankies on their web site.
My favorite Pope! VERY serious about this work!
Oh yeah, that was at his posthumous trial. I wondered if that was the one with his three fingers chopped off.
I especially don't understand why such things never fail to attract an approving audience.
Truly creepy behavior.
INFALLIBILITY
Freedom from error in teaching the universal Church in matters of faith or morals. As defined by the First Vatican Council, "The Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra—that is, when in discharge of the office of pastor and teacher of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals; and therefore such definitions are irreformable of themselves, and not in virtue of consent of the Church" (Denzinger 3074).
The bearer of the infallibility is every lawful Pope as successor of Peter, the Prince of the Apostles. But the Pope alone is infallible, not others to whom he delegates a part of his teaching authority, for example, the Roman congregations.
The object of his infallibility is his teaching of faith and morals. This means especially revealed doctrine like the Incarnation. But it also includes any nonrevealed teaching that is in any way connected with revelation.
The condition of the infallibility is that the Pope speaks ex cathedra. For this is required that: 1. he have the intention of declaring something unchangeably true; and 2. he speak as shepherd and teacher of all the faithful with the full weight of his apostolic authority, and not merely as a private theologian or even merely for the people of Rome or some particular segment of the Church of God.
The source of the infallibility is the supernatural assistance of the Holy Spirit, who protects the supreme teacher of the Church from error and therefore from misleading the people of God.
As a result, the ex cathedra pronouncements of the Pope are unchangeable "of themselves," that is, not because others in the Church either first instructed the Pope or agree to what he says. (Etym. Latin in-, not + fallibilis; from fallere, to deceive: infallibilis, not able to deceive, or err.)
All items in this dictionary are from Fr. John Hardon's Modern Catholic Dictionary, © Eternal Life. Used with permission.
EPISCOPAL INFALLIBILITY
Preservation from error of the bishops of the Catholic Church. They are infallible when all the bishops of the Church are assembled in a general council or, scattered over the earth, they propose a teaching of faith or morals as one to be held by all the faithful. They are assured freedom from error provided they are in union with the Bishop of Rome and their teaching is subject to his authority. The scope of this infallibility, like that of the Pope, includes not only revealed truths but any teaching, even historical facts, principles of philosophy, or norms of the natural law that are in any way connected with divine revelation.
All items in this dictionary are from Fr. John Hardon's Modern Catholic Dictionary, © Eternal Life. Used with permission.
Infallible Infallibility
Docility (on Catholic dogma and infallibility)
Beginning Catholic: Infallibility: Keeping the Faith [Ecumenical]
Papal Infallibility [Ecumenical]
Peter & Succession (Understanding the Church Today)
Pope: may all recognize true meaning of Peter’s primacy
THE PRIMACY OF THE SUCCESSOR OF PETER IN THE MYSTERY OF THE CHURCH
Pope St. Leo the Great and the Petrine Primacy
The Epiphany of the Roman Primacy
THE PRIMACY OF THE SUCCESSOR OF PETER IN THE MYSTERY OF THE CHURCH [Ratzinger]
Satan existed before we did, it seems. For this reason I am never impressed with old religions he invented (or goaded open minds to invent). He’s been at the religion game for a long time. Just like him, they will be judged and destroyed FOREVER. Yet for reasons known only to God He allows Satan to develop and energize them and, yes, deceive millions. Scripture says these millions are deceived because they refuse to love the truth.
A person born of the Spirit can spot the fakes quite easily because of the wisdom God gives as a GIFT. You don’t get it in seminary. God drops it into your spirit by the Spirit. We are under no obligation to make sense of the devil’s nonsense. Just to steer clear of it and warn others of the wrath that is coming for all who do not know God.
lol...I know...for whatever reason my posts seem to double...had this happen once before and not sure what’s causing it. It’s annoying!
...”Catholics must submit their will and intellect to the magisterium”....
Frightened people do that when their faith isn’t strong enough in Christ, ....or their faith rests otherwise in reality......same with all the relics and statues...they need to hold onto to something tangible....
Or that of their teachers....it's the same with cults and all false religions. Just tweaked to suit their own program of indoctrination to retain, maintain, and recruit their memberships.
Unfortunately they include enough of true Christianity into their teachings which baits many who either have already ship wrecked their faith or have little to begin with. ..and especially those unfamiliar with the scriptures themselves.
I will say however, that the deceit that is happening today is especially tricky to spot....True Christians have become especially able to pick false teaching out that the enemy of men's souls has added to his arsenal by using popular or well respected men and woman to deliver a false message.
We see this in the Emergent Movement today. But Catholicism has always been so. Mingling truth with their own teachings to grow and retain the revenues and membership that sustain the hierarchy and priesthood.
It is because I have faith in Jesus Christ that I accept the teachings of the church that he established promised to guide with the Holy Spirit. The Bible says that it is so and that is good enough for me.
Can you confirm how many times the pope has spoken ex cathedra?
The Catholic church teachings conflict with the Bible of which you speak... Would it not also be ‘good enough’ when it exposes the false teachings of the catholic church?
Unless you can claim infallibility for yourself I think that I will stick with the teachings of the church founded and guided by Jesus Christ. Frankly, I find the teachings of Protestantism so at variance with the Scriptures that I do not understand how anyone could reconcile the two.
John 20:29 ...Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.