27 Comments

• 1. Rana Quijotesca  |  April 16th, 2008 at 9:41 am

  One Question:

  If you are Catholic…
  …and Catholics believe that the Pope is infallible…
  …and Pope Benedict XVI believes in anthropogenic global warming…
  …and Pope Benedict XVI believes that the Iraq war is immoral…
  …then how can you, as a Catholic, hold and vigorously defend views that are in direct opposition to views that are held by your faith to be infallible?

• 2. jackson  |  April 16th, 2008 at 11:19 am

  Ooooh, good one Rana. But I believe the Pope is considered infallible only when it comes to the Church and Catholicism, not on matters of government. But the moral point is well made.

  If the Church had it’s way globally, I believe we’d still be in the middle ages, except with a longer life expectancy. And the global population would be about double what it is now.

  My ultra conservative Catholic father believes people in the middle ages were much more “Christ centered”, and it was a much more pious time. To bad we can’t send you back there, Mark.

• 3. bagni  |  April 16th, 2008 at 11:27 am

  markblessmefatherforihavesinned:
  if you lived as christ commanded for a week?
  you’d have to shut this blog down……
  but i hope you don’t
  cuz i have alien love for you
  despite the fact
  earthlings are bringing the crazy every single day

• 4. js  |  April 16th, 2008 at 12:55 pm

  traditionally speaking, the power to bind or loose belonged to the apostles, and that binding, and that loosing, under thier authority, they put down in thier testaments of Jesus, guided by the Holy Spirit who was sent by Jesus/God Himself

  nothing the popes do can violate that

  the infalibility of the pope as a concept is only recent, however, prior to the 1 Vatican Council IN 1890, this power was uniformly recognized as though the pope was the king/phsical leader of the Church…so defining the infallibility of the Pope recognized that the pope was a man, with the sinful nature of a man, but through the Holy Spirit, was solidly the arbiter of scriptural essence, and not infallible in matters that did not involve the morals and tradition found in the scripture

• 5. SteaM  |  April 16th, 2008 at 1:45 pm

  js…

  I think you are avoiding the premise of post #1 and trying to justify why, as a Christian, you support war.

• 6. jackson  |  April 16th, 2008 at 2:17 pm

  Not just a “war”, but a vengeful illegal invasion motivated by ego and greed, and perpetuated by spreading fear, lies, and hatred of Muslims.

  Right in line with historical Church teachings, isn’t it?

• 7. Dennis  |  April 16th, 2008 at 2:19 pm

  Js, I’m not sure I understand where you are coming from here either. Christ’s teachings on forgiveness and treatment of our enemies is unequivocal. IF America calls itself a Christian nation, then we are obliged to give deference to the principles he taught as policy. If on the other hand we do NOT observe those principles, then we must make a clear delineation between church and state, and recognize that we are a secular republic.

  I am curious also - if Christ is the Rock upon whom the church is built, as you have said previously (and with which I agree), what then happened to the second and fourth commandments, of the ten? Nearly as I can figure, the Catholic church on the basis of papal authority deleted them from the Decalogue.

  This involves morals and tradition found in Scripture, for we know Christ himself kept the Sabbath and said in Matthew 5:18 “Until heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will not pass from the law until all is fulfilled.” The Scripture contains no mention of transfering the sanctity of the Sabbath to the first day of the week - this was done by Constantine. How does this pan out for you? Are you a Sabbathkeeper, or do you defer to papal authority in matters of doctrine and observe Sunday as your day of rest?

  Do you observe the second commandment (not to bow down to graven images) or have you eliminated that commandment from the ten, as Catholic tradition does? If you observe the second but not the fourth commandment, why one but not the other?

• 8. Dennis  |  April 16th, 2008 at 2:25 pm

  Correction, js - the fourth commandment was not eliminated in Catholic tradition as the second was, but the sanctity of Sabbath transfered from the seventh to the first day of the week (the sun-worshipper’s holiday)

• 9. Dennis  |  April 16th, 2008 at 3:46 pm

  Jackson (post 2): “I believe the Pope is considered infallible only when it comes to the Church and Catholicism, not on matters of government.”

  “In this church and in its power there are two swords, namely, a spiritual and a temporal… Both are in the power of the Church, the one, indeed, to be wielded for the Church, and the other by the Church. The former by the priest, the latter by the hands of kings and knights, but by the bidding and consent of the priestnood. It is necessary that one sword should be under the other, and that temporal authority be subject to the spiritual. For, truth bearing witness, the spiritual power should instruct the temporal power and judge it, if it be not good.”

  from “Unam Sanctam,” Pope Boniface VIII, 1302

  I’m not sure it worked out that well for Boniface after this. He had King Philip excommunicated, after which a band of royal mercenaries nearly throttled him, with the end result I think being that Boniface ended up doing some backpedalling.

  In my limited view this is another cautionary tale on the danger of civil and religious powers getting too closely tangled. Maybe our resident theologian could shed more light on this event and how the Vatican defines church-state relationships nowadays.

• 10. congressive  |  April 16th, 2008 at 6:38 pm

  Irony alert: during a newscast about the Pope’s visit, they cut away to report the Supreme Court ruled the death penalty was in fact okey dokey.

  Body blow! Body blow!

• 11. js  |  April 16th, 2008 at 7:17 pm

  The Sabbath in the New Testament
  Christ, while observing the Sabbath, set himself in word and act against this absurd rigorism which made man a slave of the day. He reproved the scribes and Pharisees for putting an intolerable burden on men’s shoulders (Matthew 23:4), and proclaimed the principle that “the sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath” (Mark 2:27). He cured on the Sabbath, and defended His disciples for plucking ears of corn on that day. In His arguments with the Pharisees on this account He showed that the Sabbath is not broken in cases of necessity or by acts of charity (Matthew 12:3 sqq.; Mark 2:25 sqq.; Luke 6:3 sqq.; 14:5). St. Paul enumerates the Sabbath among the Jewish observances which are not obligatory on Christians (Colossians 2:16; Galatians 4:9-10; Romans 14:5). The gentile converts held their religious meetings on Sunday (Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 16:2) and with the disappearance of the Jewish Christian churches this day was exclusively observed as the Lord’s Day. (See SUNDAY.)

  http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13287b.htm

  on the sabbath and gentiles

• 12. js  |  April 16th, 2008 at 7:19 pm

  5. SteaM

  not avoiding, i diminished its premise by stating the actual intent of the 1st vatican council … the only one perfect is God….yet you expect a man to be perfect like posted? naa…its a man made error

• 13. js  |  April 16th, 2008 at 7:33 pm

  Lu 22:36 - Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

  Jesus told us we would need a sword. No doubt, and if not for cause then for nothing.

  So many of you foolishly repeat the groundless accusations that there was no justification for the Iraq war, yet, Congress declaired war, and if one of you can show where the cause of that war was ” a vengeful illegal invasion motivated by ego and greed” then I suggest you move to Iran, and join your kin, because it probably will visit that country next.

  Yes, Iraq is a just war. I really dont care about all the double talk and BS. The Pope takes a position of non violence, but historically, thats done nothing but damage Christianity and cause suffering and death for not taking a protective stance instead of the pacifistic stance they tend to take.

  Who is my neighbor? The man that walks by while my family is being slaughtered or the man that helps to protect them? Saddam Hussein was a tyrant, not one of you lib’s uphold him as a good, or just man. His acts killed over 2 million men women and children. Over half of them were Iraqi citizens who died at the hands of brutal dictatorial power weilded by the tyrant.

  Yes, Saddam had weapons. The entire UN agreed. Congress agreed. You can still go to the FAS website and find the accounting of what the weapons were, and what they had on hand to make more chemical/biological materials, including the nuclear development that just went poof while the UN investigated, at the direction of Saddam.

  So, its the duty of the Pope to promote peace, but not to the extent that he causes danger to his flock. T hat happened before, for 400 years preceding the 1st crusade, the Pope held his hand against the sword of mohammad. Now, the sword once again is unsheathed, and again, the Pople does nothing. Those who are dying at the hands of tyrants deserve our help. The UN walks by, they watched as Saddams omissions and acts lead to the death of 500,000 Iraqi children, and as he slaughtered another 2-300,000 more unarmed men women and children because he feared the loss of his position, the loss of power. Who are thier neighbors? Surely, not the saudi’s.

• 14. Diana Powe  |  April 16th, 2008 at 8:06 pm

  So many of you foolishly repeat the groundless accusations that there was no justification for the Iraq war, yet, Congress declaired war…

  js,

  I hate to break this to you, but the Congress of the United States last exercised its Constitutional role to vote to declare war on June 5th, 1942.

  http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/policy/1942/420605a.html

• 15. LiberalNitemare  |  April 16th, 2008 at 9:32 pm

  I fail to see the pratical difference between declaring war on the nation of Iraq and authorizing the use of the United States armed forces against Iraq.

  I think that Diana’s post, while factually correct, is misleading. It suggests that congress (and by extension, democrats) had no hand in “Bushes war”.

  In fact, most of congress including manyand of the senior democrats that today insist the war is wrong, not only voted to authorize the use of force - they also voted to pursue regime change in the country of Iraq as policy during the Clinton administration.

  Whatever your position on the war in Iraq - lets not rewrite history.

• 16. LiberalNitemare  |  April 16th, 2008 at 9:34 pm

  The rock may be submerged by the wave, but it remains a rock all the same

  Love that line by the way.

• 17. js  |  April 16th, 2008 at 10:09 pm

  silly me, congress authorized an attack on Iraq, it must be some liberal deficiency to think thats not war….

  kind of like the distinction between sodomist and homosexual….and murder and abortion…

  DP, you put me to shame….i should know the liberal mind better!!

• 18. Diana Powe  |  April 16th, 2008 at 10:46 pm

  Deleted - off topic.

• 19. Dennis  |  April 16th, 2008 at 11:17 pm

  Deleted - off topic. The cat was away, and the mice did play - but the cat is back.

  On this thread you may discuss:

  Christianity, Catholicism, Popes, theology, religion, morality…but to try and drag this thing into another mindless leftwing attempt to make everything about President Bush - that won’t be allowed.

• 20. Mark Noonan  |  April 16th, 2008 at 11:23 pm

  Rana,

  Papal Infallibility

  The Catholic Church’s teaching on papal infallibility is one which is generally misunderstood by those outside the Church. In particular, Fundamentalists and other “Bible Christians” often confuse the charism of papal “infallibility” with “impeccability.” They imagine Catholics believe the pope cannot sin. Others, who avoid this elementary blunder, think the pope relies on some sort of amulet or magical incantation when an infallible definition is due.

  Given these common misapprehensions regarding the basic tenets of papal infallibility, it is necessary to explain exactly what infallibility is not. Infallibility is not the absence of sin. Nor is it a charism that belongs only to the pope. Indeed, infallibility also belongs to the body of bishops as a whole, when, in doctrinal unity with the pope, they solemnly teach a doctrine as true. We have this from Jesus himself, who promised the apostles and their successors the bishops, the magisterium of the Church: “He who hears you hears me” (Luke 10:16), and “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven” (Matt. 18:18).

  Vatican II’s Explanation

  Vatican II explained the doctrine of infallibility as follows: “Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they can nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly. This is so, even when they are dispersed around the world, provided that while maintaining the bond of unity among themselves and with Peter’s successor, and while teaching authentically on a matter of faith or morals, they concur in a single viewpoint as the one which must be held conclusively. This authority is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church. Their definitions must then be adhered to with the submission of faith” (Lumen Gentium 25).

  Infallibility belongs in a special way to the pope as head of the bishops (Matt. 16:17-19; John 21:15-17). As Vatican II remarked, it is a charism the pope “enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith (Luke 22:32), he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals. Therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly held irreformable, for they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, an assistance promised to him in blessed Peter.”

  The infallibility of the pope is not a doctrine that suddenly appeared in Church teaching; rather, it is a doctrine which was implicit in the early Church. It is only our understanding of infallibility which has developed and been more clearly understood over time. In fact, the doctrine of infallibility is implicit in these Petrine texts: John 21:15-17 (”Feed my sheep . . . “), Luke 22:32 (”I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail”), and Matthew 16:18 (”You are Peter . . . “).

  Based on Christ’s Mandate

  Christ instructed the Church to preach everything he taught (Matt. 28:19?20) and promised the protection of the Holy Spirit to “guide you into all the truth” (John 16:13). That mandate and that promise guarantee the Church will never fall away from his teachings (Matt. 16:18, 1 Tim. 3:15), even if individual Catholics might.

  As Christians began to more clearly understand the teaching authority of the Church and of the primacy of the pope, they developed a clearer understanding of the pope’s infallibility. This development of the faithful’s understanding has its clear beginnings in the early Church. For example, Cyprian of Carthage, writing about 256, put the question this way, “Would the heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?” (Letters 59 [55], 14). In the fifth century, Augustine succinctly captured the ancient attitude when he remarked, “Rome has spoken; the case is concluded” (Sermons 131, 10).

  Some Clarifications

  An infallible pronouncement - whether made by the pope alone or by an ecumenical council - usually is made only when some doctrine has been called into question. Most doctrines have never been doubted by the large majority of Catholics.

  Pick up a catechism and look at the great number of doctrines, most of which have never been formally defined. But many points have been defined, and not just by the pope alone. There are, in fact, many major topics on which it would be impossible for a pope to make an infallible definition without duplicating one or more infallible pronouncements from ecumenical councils or the ordinary magisterium (teaching authority) of the Church.

  At least the outline, if not the references, of the preceding paragraphs should be familiar to literate Catholics, to whom this subject should appear straightforward. It is a different story with “Bible Christians.” For them papal infallibility often seems a muddle because their idea of what it encompasses is often incorrect.

  Some ask how popes can be infallible if some of them lived scandalously. This objection of course, illustrates the common confusion between infallibility and impeccability. There is no guarantee that popes won’t sin or give bad example. (The truly remarkable thing is the great degree of sanctity found in the papacy throughout history; the “bad popes” stand out precisely because they are so rare.)

  Other people wonder how infallibility could exist if some popes disagreed with others. This, too, shows an inaccurate understanding of infallibility, which applies only to solemn, official teachings on faith and morals, not to disciplinary decisions or even to unofficial comments on faith and morals. A pope’s private theological opinions are not infallible, only what he solemnly defines is considered to be infallible teaching.

  Even Fundamentalists and Evangelicals who do not have these common misunderstandings often think infallibility means that popes are given some special grace that allows them to teach positively whatever truths need to be known, but that is not quite correct, either. Infallibility is not a substitute for theological study on the part of the pope.

  What infallibility does do is prevent a pope from solemnly and formally teaching as “truth” something that is, in fact, error. It does not help him know what is true, nor does it “inspire” him to teach what is true. He has to learn the truth the way we all do - through study - though, to be sure, he has certain advantages because of his position.

  Peter Not Infallible?

  As a biblical example of papal fallibility, Fundamentalists like to point to Peter’s conduct at Antioch, where he refused to eat with Gentile Christians in order not to offend certain Jews from Palestine (Gal. 2:11-16). For this Paul rebuked him. Did this demonstrate papal infallibility was non-existent? Not at all. Peter’s actions had to do with matters of discipline, not with issues of faith or morals.

  Furthermore, the problem was Peter’s actions, not his teaching. Paul acknowledged that Peter very well knew the correct teaching (Gal. 2:12-13). The problem was that he wasn’t living up to his own teaching. Thus, in this instance, Peter was not doing any teaching; much less was he solemnly defining a matter of faith or morals.

  Fundamentalists must also acknowledge that Peter did have some kind of infallibility - they cannot deny that he wrote two infallible epistles of the New Testament while under protection against writing error. So, if his behavior at Antioch was not incompatible with this kind of infallibility, neither is bad behavior contrary to papal infallibility in general.

  Turning to history, critics of the Church cite certain “errors of the popes.” Their argument is really reduced to three cases, those of Popes Liberius, Vigilius, and Honorius, the three cases to which all opponents of papal infallibility turn; because they are the only cases that do not collapse as soon as they are mentioned. There is no point in giving the details here - any good history of the Church will supply the facts - but it is enough to note that none of the cases meet the requirements outlined by the description of papal infallibility given at Vatican I (cf. Pastor Aeternus 4).

  Their “Favorite Case”

  According to Fundamentalist commentators, their best case lies with Pope Honorius. They say he specifically taught Monothelitism, a heresy that held that Christ had only one will (a divine one), not two wills (a divine one and a human one) as all orthodox Christians hold.

  But that’s not at all what Honorius did. Even a quick review of the records shows he simply decided not to make a decision at all. As Ronald Knox explained, “To the best of his human wisdom, he thought the controversy ought to be left unsettled, for the greater peace of the Church. In fact, he was an inopportunist. We, wise after the event, say that he was wrong. But nobody, I think, has ever claimed that the pope is infallible in not defining a doctrine.”

  Knox wrote to Arnold Lunn (a future convert who would become a great apologist for the faith - their correspondence is found in the book Difficulties): “Has it ever occurred to you how few are the alleged “failures of infallibility”? I mean, if somebody propounded in your presence the thesis that all the kings of England have been impeccable, you would not find yourself murmuring, “Oh, well, people said rather unpleasant things about Jane Shore . . . and the best historians seem to think that Charles II spent too much of his time with Nell Gwynn.” Here have these popes been, fulminating anathema after anathema for centuries - certain in all human probability to contradict themselves or one another over again. Instead of which you get this measly crop of two or three alleged failures!” While Knox’s observation does not establish the truth of papal infallibility, it does show that the historical argument against infallibility is weak.

  The rejection of papal infallibility by “Bible Christians” stems from their view of the Church. They do not think Christ established a visible Church, which means they do not believe in a hierarchy of bishops headed by the pope.

  This is no place to give an elaborate demonstration of the establishment of a visible Church. But it is simple enough to point out that the New Testament shows the apostles setting up, after their Master’s instructions, a visible organization, and that every Christian writer in the early centuries? - in fact, nearly all Christians until the Reformation - fully recognized that Christ set up an ongoing organization.

  One example of this ancient belief comes to us from Ignatius of Antioch. In his second-century letter to the church in Smyrna, he wrote, “Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 8, 1 [A.D. 110]).

  If Christ did set up such an organization, he must have provided for its continuation, for its easy identification (that is, it had to be visible so it could be found), and, since he would be gone from earth, for some method by which it could preserve his teachings intact.

  All this was accomplished through the apostolic succession of bishops, and the preservation of the Christian message, in its fullness, was guaranteed through the gift of infallibility, of the Church as a whole, but mainly through its Christ-appointed leaders, the bishops (as a whole) and the pope (as an individual).

  It is the Holy Spirit who prevents the pope from officially teaching error, and this charism follows necessarily from the existence of the Church itself. If, as Christ promised, the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church then it must be protected from fundamentally falling into error and thus away from Christ. It must prove itself to be a perfectly steady guide in matters pertaining to salvation.

  Of course, infallibility does not include a guarantee that any particular pope won’t “neglect” to teach the truth, or that he will be sinless, or that mere disciplinary decisions will be intelligently made. It would be nice if he were omniscient or impeccable, but his not being so will fail to bring about the destruction of the Church.

  But he must be able to teach rightly, since instruction for the sake of salvation is a primary function of the Church. For men to be saved, they must know what is to be believed. They must have a perfectly steady rock to build upon and to trust as the source of solemn Christian teaching. And that’s why papal infallibility exists.

  Since Christ said the gates of hell would not prevail against his Church (Matt. 16:18b), this means that his Church can never pass out of existence. But if the Church ever apostasized by teaching heresy, then it would cease to exist; because it would cease to be Jesus’ Church. Thus the Church cannot teach heresy, meaning that anything it solemnly defines for the faithful to believe is true. This same reality is reflected in the Apostle Paul’s statement that the Church is “the pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15). If the Church is the foundation of religious truth in this world, then it is God’s own spokesman. As Christ told his disciples: “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me” (Luke 10:16).

  NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
  presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
  Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004

  IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
  permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
  +Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004

  If you are to comment on a subject, you should know it, first.

• 21. Mark Noonan  |  April 16th, 2008 at 11:42 pm

  js,

  It should also be kept in mind that both JPII and B XVI are of the WWII generation - each of them witness the most horrific destruction wrought by war. It is no surprise that they both are vehement in their opposition to war - but it should also be noted that neither of them made opposition to the war a central issue in their Pontificates.

  The Pope, I believe, holds that we should not have liberated Iraq - but from what I’ve read and heard about the Pope, his main aim now is to have peace and liberty flower in Iraq, with the protection of Iraq’s Christian community very high on his list of concerns. As to our political debate about whether we should withdraw sooner or later, I doubt much that the Pope will ever offer a public opinion - such a thing is a prudential judgement for government, not a matter of faith and morals for the Pope.

• 22. Diana Powe  |  April 16th, 2008 at 11:54 pm

  Mark,

  I would agree with your analysis.

• 23. Mark Noonan  |  April 17th, 2008 at 12:37 am

  Diana,

  Thinking a bit further on it, I get the understanding that the Pope - as Christ’s Vicar - cannot be other than a man who urges the peaceful solution…but I do wonder if we - meaning the whole of western civilization - have recoiled too far from the barbarities of the two World Wars?

  We were, perhpas, too fond of war for a while - one only has to note how the Europeans went off singing to that welter of slaughter known as World War One…but as we reacted - very justifiably - to the excesses of 1914-1945, I begin to think that we lost sight of the fact that we do, indeed, have to fight at times…and that if we must fight, it is better we fight at the time and place of our choosing, not waiting upon the enemy to strike us.

• 24. Dennis  |  April 17th, 2008 at 12:49 am

  Deleted - off topic.

• 25. Dennis  |  April 17th, 2008 at 1:24 am

  Deleted - off topic. Really, for crying out loud, the only subject in the world is not the liberation of Iraq. Lay off. Find something interesting to say about the subject at hand, or stay silent.

• 26. js  |  April 18th, 2008 at 2:19 pm

  Now if the Pope would oppose the Islamists in Sudan. I think I read that he said that diplomacy needs to be exerted to the highest extreme possible, but like Iraq, we negotiated for a decade, only to find that Saddam had no intention of telling the truth, and honest dealing….Sudans record goes back decades, literally millions have died at the hands of islamists……when diplomacy is an excuse for inaction, at the costs of thousands of lives every month….are we actually fulfilling the intent of scripture?

• 27. Flowers Types Of Flowers &hellip  |  June 11th, 2008 at 6:33 pm

  Flowers Types Of Flowers Amy Rose

  I didn’t agree with you first, but last paragraph makes sense for me