The debate "The Pope is not infallible" was started by
December 4, 2015, 8:41 pm.
55 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 13 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
historybuff posted 8 arguments, Sosocratese posted 3 arguments, PsychDave posted 24 arguments to the agreers part.
Alex posted 18 arguments to the disagreers part.
historybuff, Yuki_Amayane, Sosocratese, PsychDave, iSmuggleJews, Skeetc15, Glyan14, truth_or_ture, champ13, waynemc15, Sli, curlyyxx, sloanstar1000, kgb, JesusIsGod, Picassota, kallistigold23, famouslorie, omgflyingbannas, AlertedVision, AngryBlogger, Freyja, Dctheentrepreneur and 32 visitors agree.
kane, AlexRose1517, windu2420, TruthSeekerCivilSpeaker, WaspToxin, Yanksxx21 and 7 visitors disagree.
Where does the idea of the Pope's infallibility come from? If you weren't even aware that it is based on the assumption that Peter was called infallible and is claimed to have been the first Pope passing that infallibility on to his successors you obviously haven't done enough research into this subject as you should have. My calling into question the basis of your claim is not an admission that I am losing the debate, it is a change of line of argument since you have decided that the Popes throughout history were either unaware that they were infallible or mistakenly believed that they were human and therefore fallible. Continuing that line of discussion is pointless since you don't consider the Pope to be a credible source of information on the infallibility of the Pope.
Done. Feel free to not respond in this debate as there is no need for us to repeat the arguments in both topics.
please explain the teachings of jesus the church today does not follow in the debate I created "the church ignores Jesus's teachings"
As to the church itself being infallible, there are two reasons this can be demonstrated to be untrue. The first is that it is composed of people, each of whom is fallible. Since, as you have already admitted, all people are capable of mistakes, and the church is made up of people, the church itself is by definition able to err. Unless you have proof otherwise, the church is no more infallible than those who control it. The second reason is that the church derives it's claim of infallibility from the authority of Jesus. Simultaneously to this, the church directly contradicts many if his teachings and instructions. This means that one of two scenarios is true. One is that Jesus himself was wrong and the church is right in these instances, indicating that Jesus was fallible and therefore so is the church. The other is that Jesus was right as he is infallible, and the church errs in disregarding his teachings and commands, meaning that the church is mistaken and therefore is fallible. Either way, the church contravening Jesus teachings remove any claim of infallibility stemming from his son authority.
you realize you've lost, so your changing the subject to peter being the first pope.
Do you have any way to justify your belief that he was not speaking for the church when he said he was not infallible?
We have repeatedly pointed out that your Bible verse does not represent proof of the Pope's infallibility. The belief in infallibility stems from a belief that the first Pope, the disciple Peter, was infallible. Despite this there is no proof that Peter was ever recognized as Pope in his lifetime, and there is evidence that he was fallible since he was chastised by other disciples.
You may be interested to note that the Bible does say that false beliefs would be created, even by leaders of the church, and that Christians should compare these teachings with Scripture since that alone is infallible. I will include a link to a resource that sums this up including citations rather than go through them all. It is primarily concerned with whether Peter was the first Pope, but touches upon the other subjects as well.
the pope can be wrong, he can sin, and many popes have been very bad, and wrong.
but the church is not human, so that rule does not apply. when the pope is speaking for the church only then is he infallible.
a human being capable of being wrong is the default belief. everyone is capable of being wrong. if you think otherwise you need proof. my point is that the Pope is a human being. there is no evidence that the Pope is infallible. there is significant reason to believe he is not.
can you prove it wrong? if not its an opinion both ways, since neither of us can prove it.
I have support for my claim, you have some support for your claim. bit since the argument was "the pope is not infallible" and you have not given anything prove that statement you have lost.
there has been no example of the rule being true. I could say I'm God. you have no proof I'm not. the Pope being infallible is an incredible claim. it requires proof. there isn't any. you've given us a quote from the Bible that doesn't say what you claim it says and that's all. we've given you considerable reasons to doubt infalliblity, you've given us no reason to believe it.
the topic is "the pope is not infallible" you have to prove why he isn't and according to the infallibility rules and your examples you have yet to do so.
please prove that he isn't
the way I prove he is saying the bible verse about hell not prevailing against the church, and stating that there has been no example of a pope breaking the rule.
Alex, you are placing the entire burden of proof on us, and we have demonstrated with the Pope's own words that he is not infallible. How about you provide some evidence of papal infallibility beyond the claim itself? You have a bunch of old men claiming that they, and the Pope, cannot err, but can you offer any real proof that this is true?
the rules of infallibility were crafted with this in mind. they made the rules so that there was enough wiggle room to get around all the disagreements the Pope's have had. there have been heretic popes and popes who disagreed on alot of matters of faith. the church rigged the game so they could pretend they were infallible the whole time.
when this pope said "I'm not infallible" did he follow the rule of infallibility
1. say it freely
2. make it an official statement of the church, the pope must be speaking for the chufch, not for himself
3. it must be on faith and morals
prove any pope followed the rule of infallibility and said something wrong. you have yet to do this.
Why does a Pope saying "I am not infallible" not count as a statement for the church. You keep saying if it was in a homily it doesn't count, but when would that ever come up on a homily? The statements were made in response to people claiming he was infallible, not in a random mass where the Pope decided mention infallibility. There is 1000 years of tradition and support against the idea that the Pope is infallible. How do you think that your refusal to do anything but claim that any statement counter to your argument doesn't count strengthens your position?
we have pointed out things the Pope has been wrong about. there have been Pope's who were heritics, there have been Pope's who said they were not infallible. we have explained that over 1000 years of popes did not claim infallibility. that has only been accepted for about 150 years. for almost the entire history of church Pope's were not thought to be infallible, including by the Pope. how do you explain that? why does the last 150 years completely overwrite the previous 1000 years. you claim that the Catholic church is built on tradition. but the idea of infallibility was changed in 1870, completely spitting on the tradition of the church because it was politically convenient.
the pope gas to make a statement of the church, it's more like the church is infallible, and only when the pope is speaking for the church he's infallible. let's say a pope said "I'm not infallible" but in a homily, that's not him speaking as the church.
you repeating the same thing over and over does not mean I've lost, but rather you've lost. you can't disprove the pope being infallible, so you have lost.
So since you have lost you have shifted the goalposts, that's fun. Define what it would take for you to consider a Pope's statement as an official statement. You throw that around a lot, but what would it take for you to accept that the Pope and the church can be wrong? When the Pope says "I am not infallible" Why do you not consider that a statement about his infallibility?
for the last time NAME ME A POPE THAT BREAKS THE RULE OF INFALLIBILITY.
the rule is:
1. the pope must say it freely
2. it must be an official statement of the church on faith and morals
you seem to have trouble with 2, you don't seem to know what "official statement of the church is and how it is different from a homily.
Do you feel a Pope, freely and without coercion saying that having faith that the Pope is infallible is not only not true but is the work if the devil is not a matter of faith? You haven't actually refuted the arguments, just redefined the context of them. The Pope made a statement that he was not infallible, and you claim he is and was mistaken about his own infallibility that is illogical to the point of absurdity.
One early Pope did claim infallibility when he said "By the power of the Holy Spirit he needs no human instruction and is incapable of doctrinal error." but you will have trouble using it to support this since he was claiming that the Roman Emperor, not himself.
I'm changing to neutral in this debate because the pope as a man, by himself is not infallible. He is only infallible when it is a official church statement said freely by the pope, and the statement is on faith or morals.
I hope you understand now you have no objection to the infallibility rule, now that I have explained the rule to you, and refuted your objections.
So the Pope didn't know he was infallible?
The question is not whether the church is infallible, it is about the Pope.
the pope's own opinion that was not the churches can be wrong. the pope had a wrong opinion on infallibility simple. what are not getting?
So what you are saying is the fact that no Pope claimed to be infallible for hundreds of years, and even denied that they were, they were mistaken and actually were infallible? How exactly do you think that changed? You keep claiming that the Pope was wrong about not being able to be wrong. How can you possibly claim that?
Look at number 2.
he said that freely, but a homily, he never made an official church statement. for infallibility to apply you need to
1. freely say the statement
2. say it as an official church statement
Pope John XXII said that the Pope is not infallible and that such a belief is the work of the devil.
name a pope who
1. freely said infallibility was a lie
2. said it officially on behalf of the church.
"All Popes follow the same rule" would include those who denied being infallible? Would it include those who allowed Galileo to be charged with heresy? Would it include those who condemned homosexuality as well as those who do not? Would it include those who permitted many innocent people to be burned as witches? Would it include those who encouraged crusades, including against other Christians?
That could be interpreted to mean that the church would not be destroyed, or many other things. Using a vague statement put of context hardly demonstrates irrefutable proof, especially when, as historybuff has repeatedly pointed out, many Popes denied being infallible. If they really were infallible, then they would not be since they wouldn't be able to be wrong when denying being infallible. Your argument is kind of caught in a paradox.
hell not prevailing against the church doesn't say that the Pope is always right. that isn't clear, because that isn't what it says. no one interpreted it that way for over 1000 years. popes have openly said they are not infallible and that it is a lie from the devil. no Pope claimed to be infallible for hundreds and hundreds of years. the rule before 1870 was that only Jesus was infallible. the rule you cling to (without any evidence) has only been a rule for about 150 years. the 1500 years before that it was considered a lie.
"the gates of hell will not prevail against the church" in scripture, and is pretty clear as to saying the church is without son, or error.
the pope is always infallible when speaking freely and officially for the church. that's the rule, and that's what has always happened, no pope has gone against it. saying the infallibility only applies when we want it is not an argument because
1. we have a rule for infallibility
2. all popes follow the same rule. there is no individual rule for each pope.
So basically the Pope is infallible when convenient and any disproving evidence is irrelevant? The fact that there is nothing in any scripture that says the Pope is infallible, as has already been demonstrated, doesn't concern you?
There were never any examples of a pope freely making an official statement of the church that was false.
there were examples of freely given examples of statements that were unofficial, and non freely given official statements, bit neither of those break infallibility.
pope vigilius was the same as pope liberius. they signed under torture. and Infallibility only applies to free acts of the pope and not to acts under torture.
and honorius was condemned by the third council of Constantinople for inaction, not heresy
honorius was tricked by surguis. surguis wrote that jesus had 1 will because Jesus could not oppose himself and two different wills oppose. the pope wrote back that Jesus's wills could not oppose so he had 1 will. we see how he has tricked here.
and the letter he wrote was private, it was not an official statement of the church, so infallibility wad never in question.
After 2 years of imprisonment, harassment and exile Liberius was released. Why was he released?did he finally give in and sign this heretical creed, or did the emperor finally give up this battle of the wills? Although it?s possible that Liberius did buckle under the pressure the following evidence indicates he didn?t. Patrick Madrid writes, "Had he really given in to the emperor during his exile, the emperor would have published his victory far and wide; there would have been no possible doubt about it?.." So if Pope Liberius did end up signing this creed, why was there only silence? While it?s true that this is an argument from silence, it can?t be ignored. Assuming the worst case scenario is true, Pope Liberius only signed the creed after two years of harassment, exile and coercion. The signing didn?t come from his own free will, and for this reason papal infallibility isn?t an issue.
On a separate line of argument, there are multiple examples of Popes changing their pronouncements, which shouldn't be possible if they are infallible.
Pope Liberius was exiled for refusing to bow to Emperor Constantius II 's wishes and condemn Athanasius. In exile he gave in and did so and accepted a new creed that placed Jesus below the Father, which is now heresy. Only after the Emperor died did the church go back to the Nicean creed. From the human perspective it makes sense. When the Emperor tells you to agree with him, the best course for a long life is to do so. The Pope should not be able to if he is infallible, however.
Pope Vigilius had a similar story. He refused to condemn something not condemned by the church, then condemned it when the Emperor of the day forced him to. He then recanted his condemnation after being excommunicated by a synod of bishops from Africa, then unrecanted it when those bishops started being arrested and r exiled.
Finally there is Pope Honorius, who believed that Jesus only had one will, which was declared heretical layer. He was actually condemned by the next Pope over these beliefs. His story was held as an example that the Pope is not infallible by the bishops voting on whether or not he is infallible.
So how can you disregard words that were inspired by God? In the same book of the Bible it condemns being gay and condones capital punishment for sowing two crops in the same field. How does the church justify ignoring one rule in the Bible while standing behind the other?
it's inspired by God. this means what the people wrote was inspired, not what the people write about did.
So the Bible is not written or inspired by God?
we look at what God and Jesus say and the church says "those laws God gave us, follow them" we follow everything God gave us.
How does the church determine what God wants if the Bible is wrong?
the bases for moral judgment is the church, not the bible. the prodestants use only the bible, so again use that argument against the prodestants.
the church does not follow slavery as the jews did because God does not want it. the people on the old testemenent made those laws not God. we follow God. and the church makes moral judgements based on jesus.
Do you still use the Bible as the basis for your moral judgement? If not, when did the church abandon it? If so, why do you feel you can distance yourself from the word of God when it proves inconvenient? Either the word of God is incorruptible and the words and actions of the old testament are still valid, or they are not and the basic text upon which your religion is based is already inherently flawed.
you said "the church" the birthday of the church was Pentecost. back in judges time there was no catholic church. and at the time that kind of behavior was common, and people thought nothing of it.
you still have not given me an example of the church permitting rape.
I'm not going to quote the entire passage because it is rather long, but Judges 21:10-24 recounts genocide, sex slavery, and kidnapping, all with the approval of the religious leaders.
They basically killed every man and boy and every woman who was not a virgin. The 400 virgins are captured and given to the men of one of the tribes of Israel as wives (somehow I doubt it was consensual). Then, since there were not enough captives for all the men to get one, they recommend kidnapping girls from a festival (from another tribe of Israel) and take them home to be their wives.
Deuteronomy 20:10-14 gives permission to either enslave everyone in a town if it surrenders or kill all of the men and seize all of the virgins, livestock and property for your self if it doesn't.
There are many examples of the Bible condoning rape and slavery.
when has the church ever said rape is good?
all sin and evil, lies and bad things come from hell, if hell prevailing means one of the above happened. Jesus says he'll can't prevail so we know none of the above happened.
You have made that argument before, as have others, but why does the church being wrong mean Hell prevails? The church has taught and believed in many things that are no longer acceptable including slavery, kidnapping and rape. How do you justify these things being in the Bible if the church cannot be wrong?
Jesus said "the gates of hell cannot prevail against the church"
This means the church can't be wrong because that would be hell prevailing. when the pope speaks for the church what he is saying is not his opinion, but the teaching of the church.
You are saying it as though these are forgone conclusions. WHY can the church not be wrong? WHY cam the Pope not be wrong when he speaks for the church. Saying that they can't be is great, except that the church is run by men, and as such it is possible for it to be wrong. Again, do you have proof to support your claim that the church cannot be wrong or is it something that you take on faith?
the pope by himself can be wrong as John XXII was. the church cannot be wrong. How does the church say things? though the pope speaking officially and making an official church statement. such as making a doctrine.
conclusion: the church is infallible, so therefore when the pope is speaking for the church he is infallible. when the pope is speaking on his own he is not infallible, so he could be wrong.
How does the extraordinary magisterium make him unable to be wrong? The explanation demonstrates that Popes can and have been wrong, them says that it was decided that they can't be sometimes. What changes? Do you actually have any justification, or is this something you take on faith?
reread the last sentence of the copy and past from the website. it states the pope can be guilty of heresy, UNLESS he is speaking in the extroydinary Magisterium, which alone is infallible (on faith and morals) this means that when the pope us speaking officially he can't lie or tell heresy. John XXII did never speak out in heresy in the official teaching of the church, he made no doctrine, he only stated heresy at 3 sermons. these sermons were not official statements of the church.
The Pope being guilty of heresy would seem to indicate that he is not infallible. That last sentence basically says that unless you assume the Pope is infallible, he is not. It is circular logic since the argument is meaningless unless you accept that the Pope is infallible, which is what we are debating. If a Pope can commit heresy, he is certainly not infallible.
In three sermons from 1331 until 1333 preached and wrote against
the common opinion of theologians, preaching instead that the souls of the
just do not enjoy the Beatific Vision immediately after death, nor are the
wicked at once eternally damned, but that all await the final judgment of
at the Last Day. The pope was denounced as a heretic and demanded to be
brought before a council for trial and condemnation. Yet he persisted in
teaching this error, even throwing into the papal dungeon one who accused
of heresy. Eventually, however, the pope appointed a commission of
theologians to examine the question, which easily showed him that his
teaching was contrary to the almost universal opinion of theologians. On
day before his death, December 3, 1334, he issued the Bull Ne Super His in
the presence of the College of Cardinals, formally and solemnly revoking his
opinion. On January 29, 1936, his successor, Pope Benedict XII, published
this document, along with his own Constitution, Benedictus Deus, which
declared authoritatively and perpetually concerning the matter.
John XXII, upon his deathbed, solemnly recanted every opinion, every
teaching contrary to the Catholic Faith, alluding to his heretical sermon
given on the Feast of All Saints in 1331, "determinationi Ecclesiae ac
successorum nostrorum" [submitting all that he may have said or written on
the subject to the judgement of the Church and of his successors]. Such
instances do not leave any room for doubt but that it is possible for a Pope
to be guilty of heresy, except in the exercise of the Extraordinary
Magisterium, which, alone, is intrinsically infallible.
sorry for the long statement, but I copied and pasted from the site above, if you go to it you will find various saints confirming infallibility before the doctrine was made.
I'm going to have to research that. I'm going to bed now, and I'll research and get back to you tomorrow.
alright ignore that for a moment. explain the rest of it. pope john XXII said that the Pope is not infallible and that it is a lie created by the devil. if infalliblity is an article of faith and a pope cannot be wrong then they cannot disagree. and clearly they do. this trend of popes refuting infallibility continued for centuries. and was only adopted by the church in 1870. so from the birth of Christ until 1870 the only person incapable of being wrong was Christ. it did a millennium and a half of popes simply forget to mention that they were infallible? actually they claimed they weren't.
So the pope is only infallible as long as he makes pious statements and fallible when he makes sinful statements?
human weaknesses is caused by hell. making a sin out of free will is us choosing the bad thought in our mind. Saten is the only way those bad thoughts enter our mind. so if the pope makes a false statement as an official statement of the church it would be hell prevailing.
Alex that didn't make any sense. it says hell won't prevail against the church. that doesn't mean that Pope can't be wrong. the two things aren't even related. and the church can and has taught things that are wrong. ie heliocentricity, the crusades, torturing "heretics" etc. the Pope making a statement that is wrong wouldn't be hell prevailing. it would be human weakness and free will, which you keep saying is why God doesn't control everything.
I said he has to make it an "official statement of the church" if the pope said officially, made a official teaching of the church that rapping is good then yes that would be hell prevailing.
the pope can still sin, raping is a sin so it would be hell prevailing, but only against one man's will, not the church.
by that reasoning if the pope said "go and rape infants twice a day" that wouldn't be "hell prevailing"....What would it be then?
Jesus in the bible said "the gates of hell will not prevail against the church" since hell (saten) is the only way to sin, and hell cannot prevail against the church the church can't teach something wrong. the pope is head of the church and makes the teachings, so if he made a false teaching of the church, as an official statement of the church, that would be hell prevailing against the church. but hell can't because Jesus told us.
The concept of papal infallibility is absurd at best.
papal infalliblity was made up between 1150 and 1350 by opponents of the reigning Pope. they wanted to tie his hands to the rulings of previous popes. the popes called it a lie. invented by the father of all lies. no Pope accepted it as true until the 1800s because the didn't want to have to automatically agree with all previous Pope's. the first public acceptance only came in 1870. so for hundreds of years popes openly said they were not infallible and for hundreds of years before that no one had even thought of it. the idea that popes have been infallible for almost 2000 years but didn't say so until 1870 seems far fetched.