The Infallibility of the Pope.

[Carbon]

The Vatican Council, which met in Rome in 1870, defined the doctrine of the infallibility of the pope as follows:

"....We teach and define that it is dogma divinely revealed that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith and morals to be held by the universal Church, by the divine assistence promised him in blessed Peter, is posessed of that infalibility with which the divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed for defining doctrines regarding faith and morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman Pontiff of themselves - and not by virtue of the concent of the Church - are irreformable."

To this pronouncement, there was attached the inevitable anathema of the Church on all who dare to disagree:

"But if anyone - which God forbid! - presume to contradict this, our definition; let him be anathema!"

 

[fastfredy0]

I wonder when the Roman Pontiff speaks ex cathedra if he would cite a future winning lotto number? This would validate the Vatican counsel of 1870.
... I wonder how the Vegas odds would change if the Pontiffex cathedra predicted the 2028 Super Bowl Champion.

 

[Carbon]

I wonder when the Roman Pontiff speaks ex cathedra if he would cite a future winning lotto number? This would validate the Vatican counsel of 1870.
... I wonder how the Vegas odds would change if the Pontiffex cathedra predicted the 2028 Super Bowl Champion.

Maybe he has been doing that all along, that's why the RCC has so much money?

 

[Carbon]

As far as the infallibility of the pope or, the Catholic Church is concerned, scripture is silent about such a thing. Yet the RCC and her pope declare supremacy, authority, and infallibility. However, if that had been any infallible source of authority in the Church, it is inconceivable that Peter, the alleged bishop of Rome, would have acquainted the church as to what guide and authority was to be chosen. But Peter does not even mention the subject.


However, Jesus and the apostles did warn about those who would arise and make such claims.

 

[Carbon]

As far as the infallibility of the pope or, the Catholic Church is concerned, scripture is silent about such a thing.

And I personally believe it is wicked to call another man or an organization infallible, because it gives man an attribute of God; only God is infallible.

Also, the history of the popes reveals many grievous errors, moral and doctrinal, also many often denied each other, and have made many, many mistakes.

 

[Carbon]

Many of the popes taught heretical doctrine. Some have been grossly immoral, although the RC theologians say that this does not affect their official powers. Several of them have been condemned by later popes and church councils, and some have been declared "antipopes," that is, fraudulently chosen or elected.

 

[Carbon]

Many of the popes taught heretical doctrine. Some have been grossly immoral, although the RC theologians say that this does not affect their official powers. Several of them have been condemned by later popes and church councils, and some have been declared "antipopes," that is, fraudulently chosen or elected.

Callistus (bishop of Rome, 221-227) is said by Hippolytus, a third-century writer, to have been a kind of Unitarian, identifying the Father and the Son as one indivisible Spirit.


Liberius, in 358, subscribed to a heretical Arian creed in order to gain the bishopric of Rome under the heretical emperor Constantius. He broke with and anathematized Athanasius, the great trinitarian defender of the Nicene Creed, who records him as an opponent.


Zozimus (417-418) pronounced Pelagius an orthodox teacher, but later reversed his position at the insistence of Augustine.

 

[Carbon]

Alexander VI (1492-1503) was one of the Borgia popes, from Spain, and had been made a Cardinal at the age of 25. He had six illegitimate children, two of whom were born after he became pope. The charge of adultery was brought against him repeatedly. His third son, Caesar Borgia, was made a cardinal and was appointed to command of the papal armies. The intrigues and immoralities of his daughter, Lucretia Borgia, brought a full measure of disgrace upon the papal office. The Roman Catholic historian, Ludwig Pastor, in his history of the popes, grants that he lived the immoral life of secular princes of his day, both as Cardinal and as Pope (V, 363; VI, 140); that he obtained the papacy by the rankest simony (V, 385); and that he brought that office into disrepute by his unconcealed neopotism and lack or moral sense (VI, 139). The eloquent reformer Savonarola urged his deposition, whereupon Alexander had him condemned as a heretic, hanged, and publicly burned in 1498.

 

[Arial]

"....We teach and define that it is dogma divinely revealed that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith and morals to be held by the universal Church, by the divine assistence promised him in blessed Peter, is posessed of that infalibility with which the divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed for defining doctrines regarding faith and morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman Pontiff of themselves - and not by virtue of the concent of the Church - are irreformable."

To say it is divinely revealed has no authority behind it but its own self-proclaimed authority. The authority that is given to a man, the Pope, usurps God's word as authority over all things. And it is the same self-given authority that them makes the declaration that Peter is the first pope, that he taught succession and that the RCC is the head of Christ's church and not Christ.

 

[fastfredy0]

To say it is divinely revealed has no authority behind it but its own self-proclaimed authority. The authority that is given to a man, the Pope, usurps God's word as authority over all things. And it is the same self-given authority that them makes the declaration that Peter is the first pope, that he taught succession and that the RCC is the head of Christ's church and not Christ.

Playing the devil's advocate to make the discussion interesting/distressing? ....

It might be said the the declaration of the New Testament books as God's Word is said by many to be selected by self-proclaimed authority. That is one theory, which I don't agree with, but seems analogous.

 

[Arial]

Playing the devil's advocate to make the discussion interesting/distressing? ....

It might be said the the declaration of the New Testament books as God's Word is said by many to be selected by self-proclaimed authority. That is one theory, which I don't agree with, but seems analogous.

Well---I'm sure it has been said. However, if one knows the process of selection, the argument falls apart.

 

[John Bauer]

Alexander VI (1492-1503) was one of the Borgia popes, from Spain, and had been made a Cardinal at the age of 25. He had six illegitimate children, two of whom were born after he became pope. The charge of adultery was brought against him repeatedly. His third son, Caesar Borgia, was made a cardinal and was appointed to command of the papal armies. The intrigues and immoralities of his daughter, Lucretia Borgia, brought a full measure of disgrace upon the papal office. The Roman Catholic historian, Ludwig Pastor, in his history of the popes, grants that he lived the immoral life of secular princes of his day, both as Cardinal and as Pope (V, 363; VI, 140); that he obtained the papacy by the rankest simony (V, 385); and that he brought that office into disrepute by his unconcealed neopotism and lack or moral sense (VI, 139). The eloquent reformer Savonarola urged his deposition, whereupon Alexander had him condemned as a heretic, hanged, and publicly burned in 1498.

This is so different in rhetorical style and tone from your writing that I have to believe it was lifted from an uncited source and pasted without quotation marks. Where was it pulled from? Lorraine Boettner?

Edited to add: Yes, it was Lorraine Boettner and his book Roman Catholicism (P & R Publishing, 2000), specifically chapter 11 (link). Looking at it now, apparently the opening post was also Boettner verbatim.

Many of the popes taught heretical doctrine. Some have been grossly immoral, although the RC theologians say that this does not affect their official powers. Several of them have been condemned by later popes and church councils, and some have been declared "antipopes," that is, fraudulently chosen or elected.

William Webster had a delightful example of this in his book, The Church of Rome at the Bar of History (Banner of Truth Trust, 1995), pp. 67-68:

In a number of letters written to Sergius I, Patriarch of Constantinople, and several other individuals, Honorius officially embraced the heresy of monothelitism—which teaches that Christ had only one will, the divine. For this, Honorius was condemned as a heretic by the Sixth Ecumenical Council (680-681), which was ratified by two succeeding ecumenical councils. He was also condemned by Pope Leo II, as well as by every pope until the eleventh century who took the oath of papal office.

The significance of these facts cannot be overstated. An ecumenical council, which is considered infallible by the Roman Catholic Church, as well as Pope Leo II, have condemned and anathematized an “infallible” pope for heresy. In the light of this historical evidence, the theory of papal infallibility is bankrupt …

Roman Catholic apologists generally attempt to salvage the dogma of papal infallibility by claiming that Honorius was not giving an ex cathedra statement but merely his opinion as a private individual. He was therefore not condemned in his official capacity as the pope. However, the text of the official decrees of the Sixth Ecumenical Council proves that it thought otherwise. It condemns Honorius as a heretic in his official capacity as pope, not as a private individual, for being used by Satan for actively disseminating a heresy which would be a stumbling block for all orthodox people. In other words, it condemns the pope as a heretic on the basis of pronouncements which the Church would later define as meeting the conditions of ex cathedra statements.

There is also the example of Pope Vigilius (c. 553 CE), who had issued three official papal decrees—one condemning and anathematizing the Three Chapters, another reversing that decision, and a third reversing the reversal (because the Fifth Ecumenical Council at Constantinople had condemned the Three Chapters and anathematized not only the authors but also anyone who refused to condemn them, which Pope Vigilius surely noticed).

“So,” wrote Webster, “Pope Vigilius twice revoked his earlier ‘infallible’ decrees and ultimately submitted himself to the authority and judgment of the Council which had opposed him” (ibid., 65–66).

 

[Carbon]

This is so different in rhetorical style and tone from your writing that I have to believe it was lifted from an uncited source and pasted without quotation marks. Where was it pulled from? Lorraine Boettner?

Yes. Lorraine Bottner.

 

[Carbon]

This is so different in rhetorical style and tone from your writing that I have to believe it was lifted from an uncited source and pasted without quotation marks. Where was it pulled from? Lorraine Boettner?

Edited to add: Yes, it was Lorraine Boettner and his book Roman Catholicism (P & R Publishing, 2000), specifically chapter 11 (link). Looking at it now, apparently the opening post was also Boettner verbatim.



William Webster had a delightful example of this in his book, The Church of Rome at the Bar of History (Banner of Truth Trust, 1995), pp. 67-68:

In a number of letters written to Sergius I, Patriarch of Constantinople, and several other individuals, Honorius officially embraced the heresy of monothelitism—which teaches that Christ had only one will, the divine. For this, Honorius was condemned as a heretic by the Sixth Ecumenical Council (680-681), which was ratified by two succeeding ecumenical councils. He was also condemned by Pope Leo II, as well as by every pope until the eleventh century who took the oath of papal office.

The significance of these facts cannot be overstated. An ecumenical council, which is considered infallible by the Roman Catholic Church, as well as Pope Leo II, have condemned and anathematized an “infallible” pope for heresy. In the light of this historical evidence, the theory of papal infallibility is bankrupt …

Roman Catholic apologists generally attempt to salvage the dogma of papal infallibility by claiming that Honorius was not giving an ex cathedra statement but merely his opinion as a private individual. He was therefore not condemned in his official capacity as the pope. However, the text of the official decrees of the Sixth Ecumenical Council proves that it thought otherwise. It condemns Honorius as a heretic in his official capacity as pope, not as a private individual, for being used by Satan for actively disseminating a heresy which would be a stumbling block for all orthodox people. In other words, it condemns the pope as a heretic on the basis of pronouncements which the Church would later define as meeting the conditions of ex cathedra statements.

There is also the example of Pope Vigilius (c. 553 CE), who had issued three official papal decrees—one condemning and anathematizing the Three Chapters, another reversing that decision, and a third reversing the reversal (because the Fifth Ecumenical Council at Constantinople had condemned the Three Chapters and anathematized not only the authors but also anyone who refused to condemn them, which Pope Vigilius surely noticed).

“So,” wrote Webster, “Pope Vigilius twice revoked his earlier ‘infallible’ decrees and ultimately submitted himself to the authority and judgment of the Council which had opposed him” (ibid., 65–66).

Yes. Very interesting stuff indeed