Is the office of the Papacy an abomination?

[12th Doctor]

As Archie Bunker said...

"I don't trust da Pope.  He thinks he's inflammable.  And where does he get off sprinkling incest all over everybody?"

(Seriously -- the problem is not the Papacy.  It's the doctrine of Papal infallability.)

You do know what is meant by infallibility, right?

[12th Doctor]

As Archie Bunker said...

"I don't trust da Pope.  He thinks he's inflammable.  And where does he get off sprinkling incest all over everybody?"

(Seriously -- the problem is not the Papacy.  It's the doctrine of Papal infallability.)

You do know what is meant by infallibility, right?

Yep.  The joke is that Archie said "inflammable". "Incest" was another malaprop.  For incense.  You gotta be an All in the Family fan to appreciate it, I guess.  LOL

 Archie was famous for his malaprops.

Yeah, I got the joke... I was asking a serious question.

[12th Doctor]

As Archie Bunker said...

"I don't trust da Pope.  He thinks he's inflammable.  And where does he get off sprinkling incest all over everybody?"

(Seriously -- the problem is not the Papacy.  It's the doctrine of Papal infallability.)

You do know what is meant by infallibility, right?

Yep.  The joke is that Archie said "inflammable". "Incest" was another malaprop.  For incense.  You gotta be an All in the Family fan to appreciate it, I guess.  LOL

 Archie was famous for his malaprops.

Yeah, I got the joke... I was asking a serious question.

Yep.  The doctrine of Papal Infallability is, as I understand it, the notion that when the Holy Father speaks Ex Cathedra he is speaking the word/words of God and therefore cannot be in error.

Correct, but he must be speaking "from the chair", which means he must claim to be speaking for the Church.  No one believes that everything that comes out of the Pope's mouth is absolutely true, and everything he does is right (he can't sin), as is the common misconception... as I like to put it, "the Pope isn't perfect, just infallible."

Papal infallibility has only been officially exercised twice, though there is evidence that it was practice, at least in the western Church, going all the way back to the before the 5th century.  And we know that it was, at least, a common belief by the papacy of Gregory VII.

[12th Doctor]

BTW... if the Pope every speaks heresy ex cathadra then he ceases to be the Pope.

People often take jabs at this and say it is circular reasoning, but it isn't, because it is not the Pope who is judged to be infallible, but rather the Church through the Holy Spirit.  Even if that Pope is not removed right away, all his actions from their on out are illicit, and thus the next Pope can simply move his actions to one side and not worry about it.

[12th Doctor]

As Archie Bunker said...

"I don't trust da Pope.  He thinks he's inflammable.  And where does he get off sprinkling incest all over everybody?"

(Seriously -- the problem is not the Papacy.  It's the doctrine of Papal infallability.)

You do know what is meant by infallibility, right?

Yep.  The joke is that Archie said "inflammable". "Incest" was another malaprop.  For incense.  You gotta be an All in the Family fan to appreciate it, I guess.  LOL

 Archie was famous for his malaprops.

Yeah, I got the joke... I was asking a serious question.

Yep.  The doctrine of Papal Infallability is, as I understand it, the notion that when the Holy Father speaks Ex Cathedra he is speaking the word/words of God and therefore cannot be in error.

Correct, but he must be speaking "from the chair", which means he must claim to be speaking for the Church.  No one believes that everything that comes out of the Pope's mouth is absolutely true, and everything he does is right (he can't sin), as is the common misconception... as I like to put it, "the Pope isn't perfect, just infallible."

Papal infallibility has only been officially exercised twice, though there is evidence that it was practice, at least in the western Church, going all the way back to the before the 5th century.  And we know that it was, at least, a common belief by the papacy of Gregory VII.

Thanks, Soulty.  This was my understanding.  My concern is that Papal Encyclicals or Church Doctrines are sometimes passed off as infallible.  For example, our Bishop (who really is a wonderful man and a personal friend) says he is considering denying Holy Communion to Catholics who are pro choice.  He hasn't ruled yet, but he believes the statements of JP II and HH, Pope Benedict allow for no disagreement with church teaching on abortion.  Since neither Pope spoke Ex Cathedra on this issue, I would presume Roman Catholics had room to disagree and still receive the sacrament.

It's really not an issue that affects me, an Episcopalian.  But I do care about my Catholic friends and relatives.

Speaking of our Catholic Bishop -- even though he is very conservative, I really admire him.  He was one of the whistleblowers who was unceremoniously shipped out of the Boston Archdiocese when he complained about predatory clergy.  It took a lot of courage but he stood tall and showed that there are more Godly Catholic clergy out there than bad guys.  His name is John D'Arcy and after almost 20 years in Indiana, he still sounds like he's from Boston.  I love the guy.

Indeed... encyclicals are based of of interpretations of scripture, and while we as Catholics like to think that the words contained within are inspired, that doesn't equate infallibility, even in the Church's view, nor do the acts of Council's.  People tend to be surprised how little dogma the Catholic Church actually has, dogma being those things that we believe without a doubt... either because they are 100% clearly defined by scripture, or are traditions that can be backed by scripture that have lasted since basically the beginning of the Church.  Most of what the Church dogmatically defines in contained in the Nicaean Creed. 

It is also worth noting that even if the Pope were to teach heresy and thus cease being the Pope, that doesn't mean there is no Pope.  There is always a true Pope, somewhere in the world, even if he is not recognized officially at the moment as being such (or ever recognized at all).  So if John Paul IV gets elected and the next year he dogmatically teaches heresy... Cardinal Menendez of Mexico City is the one chosen by the Spirit as the new Pope, even if he never actually sits at the Vatican.

[12th Doctor]

...It is also worth noting that even if the Pope were to teach heresy and thus cease being the Pope, that doesn't mean there is no Pope...

So if a Pope did teach heresy, would he be removed by the Cardinals or would he stay in the office?

In the past when this has happened they were rarely deposed outright.  Usually the bishops just stopped listening and they waited for him to die then voted for someone who would reverse any damage he did.  I'm honestly not sure how this would work in the modern day, though I can imagine that the Cardinals might actually be more willing to depose such a person, because the the way modern media works and the speed at which things happen.

But, yes, the Cardinals could simply depose him by excommunication.

Even if they didn't, though, and for some odd reason the heresy went  unchallenged by a majority of the Cardinals, that person would still cease to be the Pope in the eyes of the Holy Spirit.

[12th Doctor]

No, but some positions of the Church (past and present) certainly are.

Example... and keep in mind that I want positions of The Church.

[12th Doctor]

No, but some positions of the Church (past and present) certainly are.

Example... and keep in mind that I want positions of The Church.

Historically, the Inquisistion, the fight over the heliocentric universe, the sale of indulgences. More recently, the Church's stances against birth control and condoms seem particularly worthy of the term abomination given the AIDS and overpopulation that is plaguing much of the less developed world.

Note I said The Church clearly you have not read my earlier comments.

First off, the Inquisition was launched by the Spanish Monarchy, not The Church, and it was actually condemned by several high ranking officials at the time (including one of the Popes I believe).  The Church never sanctioned it, nor was it ever supported by doctrine.  There were a few Inquisitions launched by Popes, but they were immediately slapped down once it was clear that the goal of the Inquisitors was punishment and not conversion or the truth and conversion.  Eitherway, this can be filed under the "human error" category.

The view that the Earth was the center of the universe was supported by academia at the time, it always had been.  It was the fault of pie-in-the-sky philosophers.  In fact, many scientists had long held to the theory.  The Pope at the time was highly sympathetic to Galileo, but he was pressed on by the academics in the ranks of the Cardinals who were very learned men and essentially saw Galileo's claims as an insult to their intelligence.

For the millionth time, it was actually against canon law to do what the "sellers" of indulgences were doing, this went ignored by corrupt clergy.

As for your other comments, actually, the Church is in the process of reviewing its stand on condoms, specifically in Africa, for AIDS prevention.  Benedict has thus far made supportive noises to this end... kinda funny how Benedict has turned out to be the exact opposite of what people thought he would be like and thus far no one has noticed (or been willing to admit they are wrong).  Benedict has done more to liberalize the Church in some areas than JPII did in all his 25 years (actually contrary to popular belief, JPII probably brought the Church way back to the right).  No one likes to admit they are wrong though, I guess.  Actually, it is worth noting, however, that instances of AIDS have dropped where governments, aided by the Church, have aggressively pursued abstinence, but its not enough, and the Church is coming around to that notion.

[12th Doctor]

No, but some positions of the Church (past and present) certainly are.

Example... and keep in mind that I want positions of The Church.

Historically, the Inquisistion, the fight over the heliocentric universe, the sale of indulgences. More recently, the Church's stances against birth control and condoms seem particularly worthy of the term abomination given the AIDS and overpopulation that is plaguing much of the less developed world.

Note I said The Church clearly you have not read my earlier comments.

First off, the Inquisition was launched by the Spanish Monarchy, not The Church, and it was actually condemned by several high ranking officials at the time (including one of the Popes I believe).  The Church never sanctioned it, nor was it ever supported by doctrine.  There were a few Inquisitions launched by Popes, but they were immediately slapped down once it was clear that the goal of the Inquisitors was punishment and not conversion or the truth and conversion.  Eitherway, this can be filed under the "human error" category.

The view that the Earth was the center of the universe was supported by academia at the time, it always had been.  It was the fault of pie-in-the-sky philosophers.  In fact, many scientists had long held to the theory.  The Pope at the time was highly sympathetic to Galileo, but he was pressed on by the academics in the ranks of the Cardinals who were very learned men and essentially saw Galileo's claims as an insult to their intelligence.

For the millionth time, it was actually against canon law to do what the "sellers" of indulgences were doing, this went ignored by corrupt clergy.

As for your other comments, actually, the Church is in the process of reviewing its stand on condoms, specifically in Africa, for AIDS prevention.  Benedict has thus far made supportive noises to this end... kinda funny how Benedict has turned out to be the exact opposite of what people thought he would be like and thus far no one has noticed (or been willing to admit they are wrong).  Benedict has done more to liberalize the Church in some areas than JPII did in all his 25 years (actually contrary to popular belief, JPII probably brought the Church way back to the right).  No one likes to admit they are wrong though, I guess.  Actually, it is worth noting, however, that instances of AIDS have dropped where governments, aided by the Church, have aggressively pursued abstinence, but its not enough, and the Church is coming around to that notion.

You can't claim divine authority and then say it was the fault of academics. Either your doctrine is god-given or its not. Oops, we were just going with the flow isn't a good explaination for a religion's failings.
You have the same problem today with contraceptives. The "infallible" Pope may very well change the doctrine of the last "infallible" Pope and say that you were just doing what people thought was right for the times, but this is ultimately very shaky ground that exposes all religion (the Catholic Church is hardly unique) for what is truly is: a political exercise.

Do I really have to get out my "dumbass" stamp?  Do you know what is meant by "infallibility" do you have any clue how that works... the question is just a formality, because obviously you don't.

Read my comments from pages 1 and 2.

[12th Doctor]

No, but some positions of the Church (past and present) certainly are.

Example... and keep in mind that I want positions of The Church.

Historically, the Inquisistion, the fight over the heliocentric universe, the sale of indulgences. More recently, the Church's stances against birth control and condoms seem particularly worthy of the term abomination given the AIDS and overpopulation that is plaguing much of the less developed world.

Note I said The Church clearly you have not read my earlier comments.

First off, the Inquisition was launched by the Spanish Monarchy, not The Church, and it was actually condemned by several high ranking officials at the time (including one of the Popes I believe).  The Church never sanctioned it, nor was it ever supported by doctrine.  There were a few Inquisitions launched by Popes, but they were immediately slapped down once it was clear that the goal of the Inquisitors was punishment and not conversion or the truth and conversion.  Eitherway, this can be filed under the "human error" category.

The view that the Earth was the center of the universe was supported by academia at the time, it always had been.  It was the fault of pie-in-the-sky philosophers.  In fact, many scientists had long held to the theory.  The Pope at the time was highly sympathetic to Galileo, but he was pressed on by the academics in the ranks of the Cardinals who were very learned men and essentially saw Galileo's claims as an insult to their intelligence.

For the millionth time, it was actually against canon law to do what the "sellers" of indulgences were doing, this went ignored by corrupt clergy.

As for your other comments, actually, the Church is in the process of reviewing its stand on condoms, specifically in Africa, for AIDS prevention.  Benedict has thus far made supportive noises to this end... kinda funny how Benedict has turned out to be the exact opposite of what people thought he would be like and thus far no one has noticed (or been willing to admit they are wrong).  Benedict has done more to liberalize the Church in some areas than JPII did in all his 25 years (actually contrary to popular belief, JPII probably brought the Church way back to the right).  No one likes to admit they are wrong though, I guess.  Actually, it is worth noting, however, that instances of AIDS have dropped where governments, aided by the Church, have aggressively pursued abstinence, but its not enough, and the Church is coming around to that notion.

You can't claim divine authority and then say it was the fault of academics. Either your doctrine is god-given or its not. Oops, we were just going with the flow isn't a good explaination for a religion's failings.
You have the same problem today with contraceptives. The "infallible" Pope may very well change the doctrine of the last "infallible" Pope and say that you were just doing what people thought was right for the times, but this is ultimately very shaky ground that exposes all religion (the Catholic Church is hardly unique) for what is truly is: a political exercise.

Do I really have to get out my "dumbass" stamp?  Do you know what is meant by "infallibility" do you have any clue how that works... the question is just a formality, because obviously you don't.

Read my comments from pages 1 and 2.

Thanks for ignoring my point entirely and resorting to an ad hominem attack. Very Christ-like of you. I'll concede that I misconstrued the arcane way the Church defines infallibility. Nonetheless, the various Popes' positions do seem to change over time, and some older ones are contradictory to proven scientific fact. This seems to me to destroy completely the credibility of the Church on today's issues because it will most likely just change its mind somewhere down the line. The Church v. Galileo is a good example for this. Why should it matter what academics think if you claim to speak for God?

No, you seemed to miss my point which was that you don't have a point.  How the individual popes view certain issues of the day has absolutely nothing to the Church's claim to right teaching, especially when the Church doesn't claim to be infallible on those issues.  You chose to resort to ignorant interpretations of what the Catholic Church claims that are fueled by pop-culture and anti-Catholic literature, as opposed to actual facts.  If I come off a little uncivil, its because I am sick and tired of having to correct ignorant people who don't even listen because they would rather hold to their arcane notion that the Catholic hierarchy claims to be 100% correct, all the time, because holding to that notion makes it easier for them to launch baseless attacks on the Church... and I am certainly miffed about having had to explain it again one page after I had previously explained it.

Yeah, Popes have changed past positions of other Popes... it bears absolutely no relevancy to a damn thing... unless of course you hold to this "strawman" Catholic Church that people have attacked for so long.

How Christ like of me?  Well, yeah, Christ was big on correcting ignorance, according to what I have read.

[12th Doctor]

I think the claim regarding to the Heliocentric solar system is a good illustration the Archbishop's (from my mouth to God's ear) point.

The Pope never claimed that he was "infallibly" proclaiming that the Sun went around the earth.  Though that was the Church's teaching, the Church never said, "We proclaim this because we are infallible."  The action was reversed, finally, under the papacy of John Paul II.

Up to John Paul I, however, supposedly all popes from the 7th Century did take an oath not to undo anything their predecessors had done as part of coronation ceremony. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Papal_Oath

John Paul I declined and not "crowned," and either was John Paul II or H. H. Benedict XVI.

Yes, but the Church as an institutional structure held that view, not the Church as the Body of Christ if you will.  As you said, the Church never claimed its teachings on astronomy were infallible.

As for the Papal Oath, this much is true, but it often seems that that Oath's interpretation change from Pope to Pope.  Some held to the notion that it really meant they were to change nothing, others thought it meant that they were not to change the dogmatic teachings, but it was okay to touch the rest.

P.S.  They should bring back the tiara... if for no other reason than it was cool.  ha

[12th Doctor]

[

Yes, but the Church as an institutional structure held that view, not the Church as the Body of Christ if you will.  As you said, the Church never claimed its teachings on astronomy were infallible.

I think that this was the key difference.  Many regulations and teachings have changed over time and I believe infallibility has been formally invoked only once or twice.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

My point is that the oath is not administered any more.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But heavy, except for the papier-mâché one. 

1)  It depends on your view of things.  "Infallibility" as a doctrine has only formally been defined since Pius IX, so if you go by that standard, then yes, this is true, it has been invoked only twice.  However, infallibility has been claimed going all the way back to Leo the Great or further and it seems to have been understood by the time of Gregory VII.  Under that standard, it has been invoked many more times, but even then only to define fundamental doctrines that almost all Christians hold to today.  It bears remembering that the reason Pius IX officially defined infallibility was not because he was making it up, but because the notion was being challenged by some bishops at the time.

2) Indeed.

3) Papier-mâché is also cool.  Maybe we can make one out of fruit.