Is the office of the Papacy an abomination?

[So the Heroes Fall]

Is the office of the Papacy an abomination?

[Χahar]

I'm not sure I would call it an abomination, but infallibility is pretty stupid.

[So the Heroes Fall]

Seriously BRTD, do you try to be an arse hole or does it just come naturally?

I'm just stating what I believe. And I believe any office like the Papacy perverts my religion.

[Senator Ben]

No, of course not.  The Pope is not infallibe, but it is a respectable office, and this thread demeans not just the Pope but also every Catholic who believes that the Pope is a lifeline to God.

[IDS Judicial Overlord John Dibble]

Seriously BRTD, do you try to be an arse hole or does it just come naturally?

I'm just stating what I believe. And I believe any office like the Papacy perverts my religion.

I'm pretty sure the office of the Pope and the church that is lead by the Pope have been around a lot longer than your version of Christianity - if we follow the logical chain of events your religion is simply a perversion of Catholicism.

[JSojourner]

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.)

[Sibboleth]

Abomination? Hello Dr. Paisley!

[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?

[JSojourner]

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.

[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.

[JSojourner]

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.

[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.

[JSojourner]

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.

[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.

[Harry]

I sometimes have people in real life trash papal infallibility without knowing what they're talking about.  It's annoying.

[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.

[I left.]

No, of course not.  The Pope is not infallibe, but it is a respectable office, and this thread demeans not just the Pope but also every Catholic who believes that the Pope is a lifeline to God.

[Jake]

We've discussed that in the past. It's mainly a problem among the teens who like to see their post counts get inflated.

And I bet if I sat down and started listing "abominations" in this world, I could keep going for a few days before hitting on the office of the Papacy.

[memphis]

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

[Ghyl Tarvoke]

We've discussed that in the past. It's mainly a problem among the teens who like to see their post counts get inflated.

And I bet if I sat down and started listing "abominations" in this world, I could keep going for a few days before hitting on the office of the Papacy.

Tend to agree. Though if we were talking about the Papacy in the 1400s-1500s things would be different...

[Secretary Polnut]

Abomination? Hello Dr. Paisley!

Scary... my exact thoughts.

[I left.]

No, of course not.  The Pope is not infallibe, but it is a respectable office, and this thread demeans not just the Pope but also every Catholic who believes that the Pope is a lifeline to God.

Don't mean to take this out on you Franzl, but is anyone else sick of seeing the exact same thing posted just in quotes?  It just seems so useless to me.

I'll try to avoid it in the future.

[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.

[JSojourner]

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

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

You know, Soulty...the one charge continually lobbed at my RCC brothers and sisters was that they believed in the doctrine of salvation by works or, "earning your way to heaven on your own merit".  That may have been true at one time.  But Protestants, particularly Evangelicals and Fundamentalists, have been very slow to recognize the 1998 Corcordat of Agreement signed by representatives of HH John Paul II and leaders of the Lutheran World Federation.  In short, the RCC and the Lutherans agreed that only the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus could atone for human sin.  They hastened to add that good works were an essential and outward sign of conversion, but insisted that the "miracle of new birth" came about through Christ's work, and not human effort.

While I respected John Paul II before the Concordat, my admiration and affection for him grew by leaps and bounds thereafter.  The document effectively ended 500 years of mutual condemnation between Lutherans and Catholics.  (I am not sure the Missouri and Wisconsin Synod Lutherans got the memo! LOL)

Hoping Canterbury and Rome can also make progress,

Jim