"The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful--who confirms his brethren in the faith--he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals...The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium," above all in an Ecumenical Council...This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself." (CCC # 891)
If the pope was meant to be the infallible speaking instrument of the church by authorization of Jesus Christ, then why did so many church councils have to assemble (for periods of many years) to resolve doctrinal disputes? What was stopping the pope from resolving those matters once for all by simply making an ex-cathedra statement?
If the Church of Rome truly believed that we needed to be guided by its allegedly infallible interpretations of Scripture, then why has it dogmatically interpreted only a handful of passages throughout church history?
Why did it take nearly 1,500 years for the Church of Rome to officially declare the apocrypha as canonical?
If the Church of Rome truly believed that we needed to be guided by its allegedly infallible interpretations of Scripture, then why has it dogmatically interpreted only a handful of passages throughout church history?
Why did it take nearly 1,500 years for the Church of Rome to officially declare the apocrypha as canonical?
If the church was meant to be infallible, then why is it that the Apostle Paul exhorted his younger companion Timothy to watch and guard his doctrine (1 Timothy 4:16; 2 Timothy 1:14)?
Is it reasonable to uphold the Roman Catholic dogma of papal infallibility in light of the fact that the pope can officially be deemed a heretic?
Why is it that papal infallibility was not officially considered a dogma until 1870? Following is an excerpt from A Doctrinal Catechism, authored by Stephen Keenan, bearing the Imprimatur of Scotch Roman Catholic Bishops, prior to 1870:
"Must not Catholics believe the pope himself to be infallible? This is a Protestant invention; it is no article of the faith; no decision of his can oblige, under pain of heresy, unless it is received and enforced by the teaching body, that is, the bishops of the church."
This question and answer section bears significance because it was removed from Keenan's catechism after 1870.
2 comments:
Many popes purchased the position and many were very immoral and wicked, yet this office claims to be a representative of Christ. The papal office declared a war on Germany which lasted for 200 years in the middle ages, and over the centuries popes have had hundreds of thousands of people murdered for refusing to accept Rome’s teachings, and had hundreds of thousands more imprisoned for the same reason. For centuries Rome has persecuted - and very often murdered by hundreds - Jews, outlawing commerce or any association between them and Christians, and marriage between a Jew and a Christian was punishable by death. (In fact, ahead of the Nazis by centuries, Rome required Jews to wear an identifying badge, including a yellow circle of cloth in the 16th Century). Rome outlawed reading of the Bible by the individual and punished those caught doing so. Rome has declared there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church, condemned all religious freedom, and also condemned the translation of the Bible. So how can they have been "infallible"?
What about the many heresies taught by popes over the centuries? And how about the times when there were two popes excommunicating each other?
I wonder what made Keenan change his position after Vatican I...
Blessings, brother.
Post a Comment