Posted on 09/25/2015 6:47:47 AM PDT by Kaslin
Normally, the issue of the pope's infallibility wouldn't much concern me, but it does get my attention when opportunists attempt to leverage his heft to advance their political agenda.
As an evangelical Christian, I don't subscribe to the view that the pope is infallible, but I respect Catholics who do and have no desire to offend them in the slightest. So let's put aside the question of whether the pope is infallible and assume, for argument's sake, that he is.
The next question is on what range of issues is he deemed infallible? Without researching the matter too deeply, I think we can safely assume that it is only on doctrinal matters. But where do we draw that line? The question is interesting because theology often overlaps with politics and because everything in our society seems to be about politics these days.
I became interested in this when I saw a reference to an opinion piece by Ramesh Ponnuru, a respected conservative Catholic whom I understood to be saying that a stronger argument could be made for the pope's authority on the issue of abortion than on most economics issues -- because the Roman Catholic Church has a much more specific official teaching on the former than it does on the latter. I made the mistake of tweeting about this -- the mistake being that it's too complex a subject to address in Twitter's 140-character limit. I tweeted, "I'm not a Catholic, but I agree with those Catholics who've said (the pope's) statements on abortion/life are in his domain but economics are not." Ponnuru, in a later post, clarified that he acknowledges that a pope can weigh in on economic matters but said "that we should distinguish between the pope's off-the-cuff remarks and the Church's official teachings."
Interesting exchanges followed because some assumed that, like many others, I am willing to use the pope's influence when he says something that suits me (pro-life) but reject his opinion when it differs from mine (on global warming and socialism).
But as a non-Catholic, I'm really not interested in using his authority to bolster my positions; I just think the question of his range of authority is interesting to contemplate.
In response to my tweet, numerous liberals pointed out that Jesus repeatedly talked about the poor and so the pope definitely has credibility when talking about the poor and economic systems.
I conceded that Jesus was profoundly interested in the poor and charity, but I noted that capitalism is the best system to lift the poor out of poverty. Besides, I don't believe that the Bible anywhere suggests that Christians can satisfy their duty to be charitable by advocating forced transfers of other people's money. If anything, I think biblical principles encourage political and economic liberty.
But on further consideration, the issue really isn't the pope's infallibility or the scope of his infallibility, because infallible or not, the pope is the head of the Catholic Church and a global figure who carries serious weight on any matters he chooses to address. Realizing this, people all along the political spectrum were selectively citing the pope's positions to justify their own when it helped them and ignoring them otherwise.
Unsurprisingly, the greatest offender was President Obama, who apparently sees Pope Francis' perceived liberal views on certain issues and his timely visit to the United States as a perfect storm to reignite his singular mission to complete the fundamental transformation of the United States.
In his remarks at the arrival ceremony for the pope, Obama went into full preacher mode, from uncharacteristically beginning his speech with the Christian staple "what a beautiful day the Lord has made" to modulating his inflections to full televangelist mode to framing his entire political agenda in terms of spiritual imperatives. Obama's gross opportunism was more transparent than anything this "most transparent" of presidents has done in office.
Obama didn't skip a beat, praising the pope for calling on us "to put the 'least of these' at the center of our concerns" and for standing up for justice and inequality. Obama extolled the pope for supporting his new direction in Cuba and for reminding "us that we have a sacred obligation to protect our planet."
People will, of course, argue that Obama was innocuously praising the pope for his leadership, but Obama is driven not by spiritual concerns but by political ones. He deliberately chose his words to establish solidarity with the pope on his -- Obama's -- agenda. You'll note that Obama omitted the subject of abortion. He did invoke America's tradition of religious liberty, but he conspicuously ignored his own record in trampling on that liberty, including the conscience rights of Christian institutions.
That Obama used the pope as a political prop was further demonstrated by White House spokesman Josh Earnest's comparison of Obama with the pope -- in citing their mutual dedication "to helping the less fortunate," their "commitment to social justice" and the common ground in their values.
It's remarkable that even a narcissist of Obama's caliber would allow -- direct, probably -- his spokesman to make the pope's visit about him.
The American people are onto Obama's mission to turn America away from its founding principles, so what a great opportunity to co-opt an outside voice to re-energize his quest. Obama is nothing if not relentless, and liberty lovers would do well to keep that at the forefront of their minds, lest they fall into complacency in the last year of his presidency, which could be the most damaging yet.
three requirements for infallibility to be invoked: 1. The pronouncement must be made by the official successor to Peter. 2. The subject matter must be in the area of faith and morals. 3. The Pope must be speaking ex cathedra (from the chair) of Peter, and must be intending to proclaim a doctine that binds the entire Church to assent.
Three instances, in 2000 years. People must work really hard not to be able to understand this.
Correct me if I’m wrong but the doctrine of infallibility has been declared only once and that concerned the station of Mary.
There are three.
“three requirements for infallibility to be invoked”
O.K. but Pope Saint Pius X declared that popes ought to be loved and obeyed in all things. That is why it is crystal clear that Bergoglio “Francis” is no true pope. He can be repected and obeyed in very little. Something is amiss, for Christ said that the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church.
He never said we would not be without a pope for a time of testing.
Pope Pius VII is the last true pope that we have had for 50+ years. So stop calling the fraud and non-Catholic Bergoglio “pope”, folks, and you will stop participating in the besmearing of Catholicism.
Like I said some people are really working hard not to understand. Don’t care.
Where does those three requirements come from? Can you provide the Scriptural support for them? If you can back up papal infallibility with the Bible that would help clear up a lot of confusion.
Some of us just aren’t all that trusting of fallen men. We follow the lead of the Bereans who nobly searched the Scriptures to see if what Paul and Silas taught was true (Acts 17). Christians are to “prove all things; hold fast that which is good.” If you can prove it from God’s Word, I promise you I will believe it. If you can’t prove it, I won’t...and neither should you.
Pope Pius VII (1742 – 1823) that couldn't be who you're thinking of.
Where does the Bible teach that popes are to be loved and obeyed in all things? If that is true you could be taught all sorts of unbiblical things, including a damning false gospel. What if that’s already happened?
It doesn’t need to be in the bible. It’s just business.
“The boss may not always be right, but he’s always the boss,” is how it is usually presented. If one is not Catholic, and I am not, what difference does it make?
Two things which can't be separated hence the fallacy of infallibility.
Correction: Pope Pius XII is the last true pope that we have had for 50+ years. (Thank you mrs. Don-o!)
Forgive me all, the twelfth is what was intended!
(Pius XII of fond memory died around anno Domini 1958.)
Since then a usurpation of the papacy and the apostasy of many in Rome and around the world has taken place with the perversion of the worship, especially launched with so-called Vatican II and promulgated by anti-popes who assumed the titles falsely in my lifetime.
There are priests today who continue the Mass as it was in its legitimate form prior to false popes and council. Pray the rosary. Live the faith as taught in traditional catechism. Worship regularly at a traditional parish if possible. Avoid the Novus Ordo (New Order) groups. They practice heresy.
As Paul the apostle said, do not abandon the traditions taught you. Recent “popes” have this common abandoning of tradtition thread throughout their lives.
The title is misleading. It should read: The Pope and the Exploiter in Chief.
“If you can prove it from God’s Word”
Where does scripture receive its endorsement and how was it selected and identified as authentic and thus worthy of belief? It was by the authority first and foremost of men consecrated by Jesus Christ and subsequently those consecrated by those men.
Thus, I can show you where in scripture it says to trust the leaders of the church but you cannot even show where the scriptures say that the written word is to be trusted above God’s prophets and teachers.
So stop pontificating in such fashion and take notice the wisdom and sanctity of leaders of the church (of whom, incidentally, “Francis” (Mr. Jorge Bergoglio) is not a part).
Paul urged the church to imitate himself in his virtue and pursuit and zeal for Jesus Christ. It’s a little simplistic to pit the Holy Bible against all the authoritative leaders whom Christ established with great wisdom and often miracles and always with consistency of doctrine including consistent with all that Jesus Christ said, taught, and did.
It is a little smug and shortsighted to assume that you can safely curl up in front of the fire and read the Holy Bible and you are safe, without the aid of the Church to interpret it properly. (Ask the apostle Paul, he is the one who according to the words of the New Testament, said that those who interpret the Scriptures on their own are in error.)
For more disappointing news about the papacy in general, check Fatima and the Vision of St. Lucia, the latest declassification concerning the trials of the Church in the XX-XXIst centuries. The Prince of the Air is just getting started.
Boy howdy. Obama's like what someone said about the Clintons 15-20 years ago, "When they need you, they're there for you."
It matters only because souls are at stake. No other reason.
I’m not debating you today. I’m sick of hearing and thinking about the pope of Rome. However, you need to know the Bible says that all who are being saved are taught by God, not taught by the church. I trust Him to lead and guide me, not Rome. There’s no wisdom or sanctity in Babylon.
Christ said:
“It is written in the Prophets, ‘And they will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me—”
(John 6:45)
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.