I remember my dad explaining it to me as a child, when St. Paul VI was pope: "The pope can't say the sky is green and the grass is blue. He can only declare what the Church has always taught, even if the people in old fashioned times didn't exactly understand it well enough to explain it. And it can *never* go against the Bible." The timing on this is something, though -- the day yo uploaded it, I came across a comment on instagram saying that Catholics believe the pope can "make up doctrine," and showed "proof" with a highlighted comment by Catholic Answers...which doesn't say the pope can make up his own doctrine, obviously.
Also worth noting, not everything the pope says is in that area of infallibility. The pope could say vanilla is the best ice cream flavor, but unless he’s talking ex cathedra what he says is not infallible. Besides we all know cookie dough is the best flavor ;P
The presenter is either ignorant or dishonest. The truth is that the RCC has no defined boundary as to what papal authority means and where infallibility starts and ends. For example, when Popes canonize Saints (to whom Romanists must pray), it is not strictly "ex cathedra" action. But if one cannot be sure a saint is in heaven, the whole clever scheme of praying to/through saints would collapse. Therefore, Romanists pretend (without any dogmatic basis) that every canonization shenanigan is infallible, until a saint is created whom they don't like, as recently happened when traditionalists launched spirited campaigns against “Saints” John XXIII and Pius VI. It is unbelievable the folly that humans can invent once they stop using the Bible as a check for dogma.
Excellent presentation. I am able to use this in my World Religions class in a secular public school. Thank you for your scholarly and straightforward presentations.
Amen! My family and I are catholic converts. This doctrine was so hard to wrap my head around. Eventually it did make sense. This is a great video. A wonderful presentation of a complex issue. Thank you!
This video helped me out immensely. I always understood the role of the Pope within our Catholic doctrine, but I’ve always found it to be quite difficult to articulate everything to non-Catholics. You did an excellent job explaining everything thoroughly - I appreciated this video tremendously. Thank you, Fr. Casey!
My issue with pure papal infallibility is this, not but a few lines after Jesus ordained Peter the first pope, Satan actually entered Peter to attempt to act as a stumbling block. (Matt 16: 18-23) Now if Satan enter St Peter, a man who witnessed first hand the miracles of Christ and was his most trusted apostle then how much more would this happen as we slowly approach the end times? Especially with the positions Pope Francis has took on many things, we also have Pope Leo XIII’s vision took take heed of.
This video is helpful. I’m a theology student pursuing a master’s degree. Because when I joined the Church I was catechized in a FSSP parish by other connections I’ve had connection with those who hold a Catholic identity but are not united to the Holy See. Stripping my nuance I’m referring to Sedavacantists. In my time of dialogue with them I find them to be truly kind hearted people of good will that have simply found themselves confused in a situation no one asked for. The primary point made by many sedavacantists is on this issue. Because post conciliator popes do not meet their frankly unreasonable standard there is discontinuity. I’m sure like me given the great faith of these people the situation is truly heartbreaking. Can you reply to me and give me what suggestions you may have in this situation?
I fear you're backing up a little too far. Popes have been speaking with full knowledge of their infallibility since the earliest days of the church. The dogmatic definition given in Vatican I gave very precise limits to it, but it in no means invented the Idea for it to be later retroactively projected onto earlier popes. The word "infallible" was first applied to the pope by Patriarch John IV of Jerusalem in the 5th century, but we have descriptions of the idea from the second century through the writings of Irenaeus of Lyons. It also doesn't say that they need to declare the teaching infallible, only that it has to be by the full authority of their office. An ol' "And I mean it Stanley" should suffice. Every canonization, for instance, is an infallible declaration of the Dogmatic fact that the person in question is in heaven.
You are the honest one. Romanists have no defined boundary as to what papal authority means and where infallibility starts and ends. For example, when Popes canonize Saints (to whom Romanists must pray), it is not strictly "ex cathedra" action. But if one cannot be sure a saint is in heaven, the whole clever scheme of praying to/through saints would collapse. Therefore, Romanists pretend (without any dogmatic basis) that every canonization shenanigan is infallible, until a saint is created whom they don't like, as recently happened when traditionalists launched spirited campaigns against “Saints” John XXIII and Pius VI. It is unbelievable the folly that humans can invent once they stop using the Bible as a check for dogma.
+Breaking in the Habit..Yes..I was agreeing with you. I have learned this from another church who had titled men I listened to..and was mislead. Listening to people..we can always be mislead. I have learned it is best to Seek Jesus..Alone. If we belong to a church..we should still be very careful we are listening to Jesus First.
Hi brother, peace to you! What about the teachings of St. John Paul II in Humanea Vitae, for example? I'm quite sure that those teachings match the conditions you mentioned in the video. I think you're totally right when you say that there hasn't been any abuse of this kind of papal prerogative, but limit its use to one time seems a little bit too strict to my knowledge of the field. Many thanks from Italy, God bless!
Hi Emiliiano. Do you mean the teachings of John Paul II *and* Humanae Vitae, because Paul VI wrote Humanae Vitae. In the case of Humanae Vitae, it does not fit all three criteria because nowhere in the document does he invoke his full apostolic authority. Rather, as an encyclical (a medium level document of authority) he is clarifying a question with some general advice. If he intended it to be infallibly taught, he would have issued in in a different style of document, one with a lot more weight, and specifically said that he was teaching from his full authority. John Paul II, on the other hand, had an interesting situation regarding the letter ORDINATIO SACERDOTALIS. Some have believed that he was teaching infallibly regarding the ordination of only men, but others have refuted this. At this point, it's a bit unclear, which makes me believe that it is not infallibly taught.
@@BreakingInTheHabit Apologies brother, I got confused with the two names "Evangelium Vitae" and "Humanae Vitae". Take "Evangelium Vitae" n. 57 when the Pope writes "Therefore, by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors, and in communion with the Bishops of the Catholic Church, I confirm that the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being is always gravely immoral". Doesn't that count as an infallible teaching? A similar statement can be found, also, at point 62 with regard to abortion. Maybe I'm getting a little bit confused also on the reiteration and confirmation of a concept previously believed or expressed by the Church and the faithful. In the case of "Ordination Sacerdotalis", the teaching regarding ordination of only men has been repeated many times before that document was written, and even recently by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith based on it (cfr. www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/ladaria-ferrer/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20180529_caratteredefinitivo-ordinatiosacerdotalis_en.html). Doesn't that count as infallible teaching either? Thanks brother, may God richly bless you and your ministry!
It would, I guess, be infallible teaching if it weren't already dogmatic in nature. John Paul II isn't really teaching that killing is bad, he's reiterating what has already been identified as divine law: God said it first and we have accepted this for centuries.
@@BreakingInTheHabitWhat if the Pope has serious conflicts regarding Hell and ends up believing without-a-shadow-of-doubt that annihilation is correct?
You should do a video too on the definition of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary! There are many sheeples out there who are clueless about that too! They think Our Lady was conceived just as miraculously as Jesus Christ was, or that she is somehow divine (outside of her Divine Motherhood of the Son of God).
I wasn't well-catechized in youth, but learned about the Immaculate Conception as an adult. And then a veteran English teacher argued with me, because she had gone through Catholic schools all her life and "learned" that Jesus is the Immaculate Conception. So many misconceptions abound!
By the way the immculate conception is an Islamic ideology very clear in the Coran in Sourat Mariam (Mary) perhaps the Infallible Pope got confused and get it from their
@@ghassanmina First of all, do you really understand what the "Filioque" and "the Immaculate Conception" are about in the Catholic sense? It appears you don't! It's no good just throwing Catholic terms about and attributing one to Islam! Stop bring so childish or wasting your time being a troll!
An excellent illustration of the subject. In light of the difficulty and the impracticality of the "infallibility" teaching, I wonder if it would have been more beneficial if this position was never made into a doctrine. The Church already had its teaching magisterium established, so all matters of faith and truth would have been better understood and accepted through this office, instead of added papal authority on top. The fact that it has been practiced so rarely shows its deficiency, instead, it becomes a hurdle and stumbling block for Catholics everywhere. It constantly needs to be explained away. What do you think Br. Casey?
When Pope Pius IX defined the term Papal Infallibility he had to go against the desires of a bunch of Gallican opponents (mainly French and German bishops who maintained that all bishops are equal in primacy of jurisdiction to the Roman Pontiff). Oddly enough, they reasoned the same way as you do: it's not expedient to define such as thing as a dogma. But Pope Pius IX knew better than these proud prelates.
@@hYpNoXiDe Beloved, Jesus called Peter to be first among equals but not as a Supreme Pontiff, nor did Jesus create a transferable infallibility as claimed by Pius IX. There is absolutely no doubt about that (if you choose to believe the Bible).
The Rome-centric church became so corrupted by power and wealth that it began altering Apostolic ethos. Today, Pope Francis is mortally embarrassed by papal infallibility. He has criticized it indirectly several times. He has also officially dropped all the titles that suggest Infallibility, such as “Vicar of Jesus Christ” (“Vicario di Gesù Cristo”), Successor of the Prince of the Apostles, Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, etc. That dogma has made the RC Church a laughing stock. I am certain that no Pope will dare speak "ex cathedra" again! But jokes aside, Pontifical infallibility is a deadly ecclesiastical poison. Among many ill effects, lets state only 5: i. It quenches the Spirit: that is why RC hymn writers are often converts or ecumenists. Cardinal Newman could not have written “Souls of men” if he did not have the fortune of starting life as an Anglican. When RCs sing "Amazing Grace" or "Blessed Assurance" or "Abide with me" one often wonders if they realize that RCs have a psychological block from attaining such depth of Christian expression mainly because of the RC ethos of infallibility which situates inspiration in a man rather than in the Word of God. ii. It quenches accountability of the hierarchy - there is “trickle-down” quasi-infallibility of Cardinals, Bishops and even ordinary priests and religious. Many RC parish priests speak "ex cathedra" in their own little corners even more stridently than the Supreme Pontiff. That is what is at the root of the explosive scandals. iii. It quenches interest in the Word of God - why bother when one man has all the answers? iv. It quenches Evangelism - people are not eager to spread a Word which is not definitive but is subject to tinkering and "interpretation" via a system led by a man who is chosen by a fallible conclave. That is why most converts to Christianity become evangelicals. RC faith is very often sterile ("immaculate", but no "conception"!!! ) v. It quenches Integrity. Lets take a simple example. Apart from the arch-conservatives, most RC clergy tell me in secret that they reject the encyclical Humanae Vitae. Yet, against the dictates of their own informed conscience, they must defend it publicly, only because the Pope is "infallible". IN SUMMARY, PIUS XII WAS AN UNMITIGATED DISASTER! MOREOVER, NEITHER POPE FRANCIS NOR ANYONE ELSE HAS FIGURED OUT HOW TO GET OUT OF THE INFALLIBILITY DEBACLE WITHOUT LOOSING FACE.
Hi, could I please get the transcript of this teaching? I'd like to translate it/generate subtitles in Finnish language... This video has already Spanish subtitles, also that would work as a basis for a translation.. I just need it in text format...
Thank you for explaining this Father!. I had a hard time explaining this to others, Now I can just point them to your video. There's no way I can explain it that well!
Why there was such strong resistance against that particular doctrine within the Church. Quite few bishops and cardinals were against it. Lord Acton, historian himself , was against it as there was no historical precedence to support such doctrine. Could you comment on that please? It's one of the few important obstacles preventing Orthodox Church from seeking unity with Rome, isn't it?
Thousands of denominations who follow biblical Christianity are far more positive in the divine economy than one humongous cult which is leading people away from genuine Christianity. Papal infallibility (the basis for the enforced Romanist "unity") is extremely damaging to true Christian witness. Among many ill effects, lets state only five: i. It quenches the Spirit: that is why RC hymn writers are often converts or ecumenists. Cardinal John Newman could not have written “Souls of men” if he did not have the fortune of starting life as an Anglican. When RCs sing "Amazing Grace" or "Blessed Assurance" or "Abide with me" one often wonders if they realize that Romanists have a psychological block from attaining such levels of Christian expression mainly because of the Romanist ethos of infallibility which situates inspiration in an artificial mechanism rather than in the Word of God. ii. It quenches accountability of the hierarchy - there is “trickle-down” quasi-infallibility of Cardinals, Bishops and even ordinary priests and religious. Many Romanist parish priests speak "ex cathedra" in their own little corners even more stridently than the Supreme Pontiff. That is what is at the root of the explosive scandals. That is also why Pope Francis can ignore very valid appeals for him to be accountable. iii. It quenches interest in the Word of God - why bother when the Pope has all the answers? As a rule RCs do not take Bible Study seriously. iv. It quenches Evangelism - people are not eager to spread a Word which is not definitive but is subject to tinkering and "interpretation" through a system led by a man who is elected by a fallible conclave. That is why the vast majority of converts to Christianity become evangelical Christians. Romanism is often a dead end ("Immaculate" but no "Conception"). v. It quenches Integrity. Lets take a simple example. Apart from the arch-conservatives, most Romanists tell me in private that they reject the encyclical Humanae Vitae. Yet, against the dictates of their own conscience, they must defend it publicly, only because the Pope is "infallible".
Does anyone know why the bishops at Vatican I put forth the doctrine of infallibility? It apparently was not necessary for the first 18 centuries of the Church's existence and doctrine had been defined by council. What was the impetus for Vat I to define this?
Hey Fr. Casey, I'm pretty new to Catholicism, so I'm still learning church history. When was the last time the Pope issued an infallable teaching? My guess would be Humanae Vitea...but I'm not 100% sure. Thanks!
The three core heresies of Rome are Pontifical Infallibility, Salvation by Works and Tradition imposed upon Scripture. The truth is, the Word preceded the Church. First, most of the Bible (the Old Testament) was given pre-Pentecost. Secondly, the Gospels were given by Jesus pre-Pentecost (although they may not have been compiled into a "book"). The Epistles are a commentary on the Gospel. Jesus and the Apostles regarded the OT as settled Scripture. For the NT, the Church simply listed the books that had Apostolic authority. This basic truth is so important that it bears repeating: it is the Word that forms the Church and not the Church that forms the Word. The Word has always been in existence (being God Himself). The Spirit inspired men to write down aspects of this eternal Word, reaching the fullest expression in the incarnate Christ. It is the Word that is infallible and not the Pope or Tradition. Jesus Himself said so in Mark 7vs9 (you may wish to study all of Mark 7; the Pharisees were the equivalents of the Romanists in that Chapter). The Church did not give us the Bible, God did. Therefore, the Church cannot teach as dogma anything that is not founded on Scripture. The Church merely discerned God's Word, guided by the Holy Spirit. And the Church that did the discernment was the Catholic Church, of which the Reformed Churches are the true heirs.
Research what the Church looked like in the writings of the Apostolic Fathers of the 1st and early 2nd century (Ignatius of Antioch, Clement I, Polycarp of Smyrna) and you will see it looks a lot more like Catholicism than 99% of Protestants or people who "don't follow religion, only Christ". Even if the books of the Bible were already mostly completed, these Fathers didn't have any kind of Bible, yet they stayed true to the faith by being taught personally by the Apostles.@@annefranciselizabeth3840
Also, yes obviously the Church did not write the Bible in 393 in Hippo, but that is when it was compiled. If you don't trust the church on anything else, then how can you trust them on compiling scripture, especially considering there is not set of books that the Apostles said should be included in the NT.@@annefranciselizabeth3840
In this video Fr. Casey says that the Bishop of Rome has "always enjoyed" the Supreme Authority given to him by Christ and in another video he says that it was a "development over time." Come on Father, which one is it?
It seems to me that Catholics have a paradox on their hands concerning this issue. There was a time when the Popes (guided by the Holy Spirit) supported the original creed that claimed that the Holy Spirit can only proceed from the Father. Then Pope Benedict VIII changed the original creed and added the filioque and said that the Holy Spirit can proceed from the Father and Son. Doesn't this mean that the early popes were not guided by the Holy Spirit and were fallible?
So the pope has a switch, whether he chooses to speak in line with his position, that makes it infalliable and when he chooses to just speak for himself, then he is not infalliable?.Where in the bible, we can see that?.. Another one, you said that when the certain criteria are met, then its irreformable, again, where in the bible we can see that?.. the bible should be our final authority, it is the word of God and not just any doctrine instituted by a person. God bless brother
Scriptural basis: Matthew 16:16-20, John 20:22-23. But we have to remember that the Bible is not the only source of truth. ua-cam.com/video/5PCOA6imZhc/v-deo.html
@@BreakingInTheHabit Matthew 16:16-20 Does not Give Peter the ultimate authority. Jesus is referring to himself as the Big Rock ( Petra in Greek), Peter's name in Greek is petros. Jesus refers to himself as the foundation and authority of church. even apostle Paul addressed Jesus as the rock (petra) in 1 Corinthians 10:4. John 20:23 on the other hand does not mean authority to forgive sins lies in the apostles, forgiveness of Sins can only be found in Jesus, John 20:23 states that Jesus is sending the apostles by the help of the Holy spirit to proclaim the Good news that forgiveness of Sins can only be found in Jesus. God bless
@@josephjr.balazo6440 that doesn’t make any sense for Jesus to tell himself he would hand the keys to himself, also Simon was referred to Peter signifying the important role he would play.
Still the idea that another human being (saints,pops,priests) can erase sin seems ungodly to me this is my problem with the church im not a christian just a seeker-of truth
I’ve been watching your videos for hours ( I will save a long story for now but suffice it to say you have my attention) I’m requesting a side bar here would you be willing to do a video on a compare and contrast of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin compared to the Eastern understanding of The Dormition of the Theotokos?
What about the Immaculate Conception? Pope Pius IX, in 1854? Dogma, Doctrine taught by the Church to be believed by all the faithful as part of divine revelation. Fr. John Hardon S.J.
Yes, but the definition of papal infallibility was not promulgated until 1871. The Immaculate Conception is infallibly taught, but was done so without the understanding of infallibility as we have it today.
@@BreakingInTheHabit Yes. But I am just pointing this out. There are so many out there who say venomous things about the Pope. As a returning Catholic, it breaks my heart because I wasn't raised that way.
The problem is that when men come up with a doctrine that contradicts biblical doctrine it is a false doctrine period , the council of Trent is men creating man's doctrine that in many ways contradictory to biblical doctrine , and no man today has apostolic authority, the last apostle was Paul and there are 12 seats in revelation for the apostles of Jesus Christ not 266
Hey Fr Casey, am I right to say that when the Pope speaks infallibly he represents the unified voice of all the fellow bishops (apostolic successors) in faith and morals?
@@BreakingInTheHabit A PETRINE SUPREME PONTIFF IS A ROMANIST INVENTION
THE JERUSALEM COUNCIL (ACTS 15) The task of governing the Early Church fell to St. James. St. James the Just was the Patriarch of Jerusalem (the headquarters of the Early Church, later supplanted by Rome) Because he was the Primate of the headquarters, James played 4 roles at that Council, viz: i. Convener ii. Host iii. President and iv. final Arbiter In today's RCC, all these roles are played by a so-called Successor of Peter, whereas the historical Peter did not play any of these roles. Please refer to Acts 15.19 where James issues the Apostolic Decree of St. James. Notice that St. James says “It is my judgment, therefore…” and NOT: “It is our judgment, therefore…”. No Romanist Cardinal/Primate of today's RCC would dare use such language in the presence of a Pope ("Supreme Pontiff & Head of the Universal Church") CONCLUSION: Peter was never Pope
@@annefranciselizabeth3840 quote; Please refer to Acts 15.19 where James issues the Apostolic Decree of St. James. Notice that St. James says “It is my judgment, therefore…” and NOT: “It is our judgment, therefore…”. I don't see anything about an "Apostolic Decree of St. James" mentioned there? It is important to point out that the Greek word "krino" can also mean "I think it good" which would be more like someone's opinion on the matter. Regardless, verse 28 explains "For it has seemed good to the HOLY SPIRIT AND TO US to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things...."
No, the Orthodox Church believes (rightly) that Papal Infallibility is a heresy. It is the single most important reason for the rejection of Rome by the Orthodox Church, which is the cradle of Christianity. Since Peter was never Bishop of Rome (the Bible calls Peter "Apostle to the Circumcised"), the Roman Catholics have built a great edifice based on absolutely nothing! The idea of an "Infallible Pope" is vehemently rejected by EVERY Christian denomination (except Rome). In order words the doctrine is universally rejected by Christians. That is why the present Pope has dropped the title "Vicar of Christ" and "Head of the Universal Church", etc. Pope Francis is so embarrassed by the infallibility nonsense.
@@annefranciselizabeth3840 quote; The idea of an "Infallible Pope" is vehemently rejected by EVERY Christian denomination (except Rome) Give me one good reason why the Catholic Church should be concerned that infallibility is rejected by EVERY denomination?
Br. Casey, If the Pope was teaching or speaking on church doctrine or quoting scripture without his personal opinion on it, Does it make it infallible?
Thank you for this clear explanation; however, do you agree that, in History, particularly when the Holy See played a political role, his defenders (on the political side, so the "papists"), papal infaillibility was already implied, in his common and false meaning, as a political weapon ?
I'll have to double-check, brother, but I think your assertion that papal infallibility was only used once - the Assumption - is wrong. If my memory of my own studies is correct, papal infallibility was also used tp declare the Immaculate Conception. That would be twice. The very rarely used point is well taken, though.
Go back to 6:43 and be careful to listen to what I'm actually saying. There has only been one instance when this was used with knowledge that it was being used. Others have fit the criteria and been retroactively accepted as infallible, but only the Assumption was promulgated after this doctrine. The Immaculate Conception was promulgated in 1854, two decades before the definition of infallibility.
From what I gather, the Holy Spirit helps the Pope retain Jesus’s original teachings, which is infallible. Any aspect that the Pope may embellish (i.e. make more strict/rigid than originally intended) is not necessary infallible. Am I correct?
The three core heresies of Rome are Pontifical Infallibility, Salvation by Works and Tradition imposed upon Scripture. The truth is, the Word preceded the Church. First, most of the Bible (the Old Testament) was given pre-Pentecost. Secondly, the Gospels were given by Jesus pre-Pentecost (although they may not have been compiled into a "book"). The Epistles are a commentary on the Gospel. Jesus and the Apostles regarded the OT as settled Scripture. For the NT, the Church simply listed the books that had Apostolic authority. The Church did not give us the Bible, God did. Therefore, the Church cannot teach as dogma anything that is not founded on Scripture.
This basic truth is so important that it bears repeating: it is the Word that forms the Church and not the Church that forms the Word. The Word has always been in existence (being God Himself). The Spirit inspired men to write down aspects of this eternal Word, reaching the fullest expression in the incarnate Christ. It is the Word that is infallible and not the Pope or Tradition. Jesus Himself said so in Mark 7vs9 (you may wish to study all of Mark 7; the Pharisees were the equivalents of the Romanists in that Chapter).
All teachings in all church's throughout Catholic Greek Orthodox Protestant etc etc have all erred from the saints of the Roman Catholic Church with Luther huss Calvin Wesley all never claimed they were infallible. The assumption of Mary, the sinlessness of Mary.before and after the virgin birth.
The Reformation was God's judgment and correction for the corrupt Rome-centric Church. The Reformers condemned three key doctrines that are poison to Christian spirituality - Salvation by Works, Tradition set over Scripture and Papal Infallibility. The effect of rejecting the Reformation is dire. It is no coincidence that the monsters of totalitarian power both within Europe (Franco, Tito, Hitler, Mussolini, Napoleon, King Leopold, Stalin, Lenin, the numerous Communist dictators, etc.) and even outside Europe were produced EXCLUSIVELY by the two church traditions (RCC & Orthodoxy) which refused to return to the supremacy of Scripture. In the divine economy of grace, the thousands of often acrimonious "Protestant" sects are more useful to God that the humongous anti-Church falsely called the Catholic Church.
The canon was closed in AD66, no more revelation. Even the apostles themselves knew they were not infallible, which is why they never privately interpreted the divine revelation they received.
As I said in the video, only one was promulgated AFTER the definition of papal infallibility during the first Vatican Council. There are other statements that are infallibly thought, but only one that came about after the doctrine was defined.
1. Jesus cannot teach error. (cf. Jn 14:6) 2. Anyone who hears Jesus cannot hear error. 3. Anyone who hears Jesus’ apostles cannot hear error. (cf. Jn 16:13) 4. The Church speaks in the name of Jesus and His apostles. (cf. Mt 16:18-19) 5. Therefore, the authority of the Church which speaks in the name of Jesus cannot err. 6. Therefore, the Church's authority is infallible, equivalent to the authority of Christ himself.
And yet the Catholic Church transferee the solemnity of the biblical Saturday sabbath to the first day of the week Sunday as a Sabbath. So pipes have and do change even biblical teachings and have had Catholic friends that are active in their church say “what leaves the lips of the pope is the same as God speaking”
The 1854, Immaculate Conception by Ineffabilis Deus is 'generally accepted' as being an ex-cathedra statement. Due to that, they had to define the Pope's infallibly and did so in 1870. If you believe in the tradition (faith and tradition, right?) of the infallibility of the Pope's office, there are several and possibly more: Tome to Flavian, Pope Leo I, Year 449 Letter of Pope Agatho, Year 680 Benedictus Deus, Pope Benedict XII, Year 1336 Cum occasione, Pope Innocent X, Year 1653 Auctorem fidei, Pope Pius VI, Year 1794 Ineffabilis Deus, Pope Pius IX, Year 1854 Munificentissimus Deus, Pope Pius XII, Year 1950
Carole St. louis Well, the answer to your question is simply: it’s not in the Bible. Just like the words Cheese Burger, Beef Steak, Kebab and Dumplings, aren’t found in the Bible as well. Yet we know that these items are what the Bible describes as ‘Daily Bread’ ‘Blessings’ ‘Meal’ ‘Feasts’ and ‘Food’. So in the same concept, the word ‘Pope’ refers to ‘Authority’ ‘Minister’ ‘Priest’ ‘Shepherd’ ‘Leader’ ‘Spiritual Father’ etc. Also, the question you asked would fall into an example of ‘Scripture Alone’ or ‘Solo Scriptura’ as the Protestants call it. Hope this helped. ☺️
Nicely explained, but it avoids the main issue. As a Protestant friend explained, she well knows the strict limitations of infallibility, the problem is that the very mention of infallibility bestowed on a single person sounds uniquely arrogant, and brings the tradition and horrors of absolute monarchy and the divine right of kings into the room. Papal authority might not be undemocratic, but with this ill-conceived doctrine, it sure as hell sounds like it. So people switch off to what they see as the cult of Catholicism. I see their point.
Good question. The heresy of Papal Infallibility quenches accountability of the hierarchy in the RCC, because there is “trickle-down” quasi-infallibility of Cardinals, Bishops and even ordinary priests and religious. Many RC parish priests speak "ex cathedra" in their own little corners even more stridently than the Supreme Pontiff. That is what is at the root of the explosive scandals. That is also why Pope Francis can ignore very valid appeals for him to be accountable.
@@annefranciselizabeth3840 In short, infallibility doctrine states: 1)God preserves the pope from error when HE definitively teaches a doctrine of faith or morals. 2)When the pope and bishops convened in an ecumenical council join in a solemn teaching act. 3)The infallibility of the "ordinary magisterium" -- that is, the teaching authority of bishops in union with the pope, exercised in "ordinary" acts of teaching outside of an ecumenical council.
How about him condemning capital punishment and putting that in the catechism against scripture AND tradition. Or allowing adulterers to take communion, or homosexuals being blessed as a couple? He’s wrong. Papal infallibility is false.
@BreakingInTheHabit I'm not trying to be difficult, but Webster's has it as "incapable of error" , "not liable to mislead, deceive or disappoint" , and "incapable of error in defining doctrines touching faith or morals" . I understand you are leaning on the 3rd definition, but it seemed like even that took place in certain settings. Did I understand that correctly?
Funny how much Catholic spin there is lately trying to explain how the pope’s recent decree isn’t really as big of a deal as it seems. The Catholic Church has been digging itself into a deeper and deeper hole since Vatican 2, and technically since 1054AD. Might just be a good time to recognize this and rejoin the main body of the 5 original churches that you left out of arrogance way back then. The church of the councils and of the apostles. The Eastern Orthodox Church.
@@BreakingInTheHabit Jesus LITERALLY didn't "Built the Church" the doctrine it is and Obviously Historically Pope didn't exist until the Constatinople and people don't realise that the Church is The People not a place ... I have to Agree with the Orthodox , Pope ARE Fallible and through history we have seen it .... Both with actions and decisions within the Church ... It's Historically Proven ... Yet Again ...The Orthodox Are Right Again
That explanation sounds like Catholics jumping through hoops to explain away and obviously flawed teaching. You teach the pope is infallible and then you say well that doesn't mean he's actually infallible and then you concoct some complicated argument that says he is infallible but he isn't infallible and it's just ridiculous.
Anda harus Mengerti dulu Apa yang dimaksud dengan Infalibilitas Paus Ex Cathedra?! 📌 Ajaran Yang Jelas Cacat! Justru Ajaran Gereja Katolik tidak Cacat Teman! Kenapa Begitu? Ajaran itu yang berasal dari Rasa beriman dari banyak orang dalam pembicaraan bersama. Bukan Ajaran Personal, Bukan Niat-niat Pribadi!. 📌 Bapa Casey Mengarang! Bapa Casey tidak Mengarang! Itu Pengajarannya bersama dengan Bapa-Bapa yang lain dengan Uskup-Uskup yang lain. Sekali lagi! Ajaran yang diajarkan Bapa Casey itu bukan Ajaran Personal!. 📌 Dia tidak bisa Salah Tetapi Dia bisa Salah itu Konyol! Anda akan berkutat di lingkaran itu-itu saja. KeTidak Mungkin Salah Pengajaran itu selama Dia bersama dengan Kolegalitas nya Bersama dengan Uskup-Uskup lainnya. Dia bisa salah! INGAT! Paus adalah Manusia tetapi Anda bisa pelajari Apa yang dilakukan selama Hidupnya! Itu Kenapa Gereja Katolik menekankan Unisitas. Kesatuan Dalam Keberagaman!
Br. Casey is a very likeable and moderate person. In my oppinion, however, any beleif that any human institution (including any church) can be infallible in its doctorine about God is naive and dangerous. We all need reference points, but the solution isn't to beleive in the infallibility of any institutions' teachings. it would be better for us to have the humility and courage to realize that we simply cannot know (unless God decides to reveal himself).
I would agree with you... if the Church was a human institution. The Church was founded by Christ and is led by the Holy Spirit. There are humans in leadership roles, but it is beyond just human agency.
@@BreakingInTheHabit Thank you for responding, brother Casey, and I respect your perspective. In my oppinion, however, the Church is led by the Holy Spirit only to the extent that the people of the Church are open to the Holy Spirit. Christ didn't grant any "copyright" or infallibility to any institution. We do need a Church in the sence that we need a family of people that strive for God together. But families can be wrong. Not to mention that when families get institutionalised they can cease to be real families (if they loose their love for one another). Thank you for being open to listen to my oppinion. :)
@@dimitris.mouroulis What you affirm is no mere theory, but a vital truth. The subjection of Scripture to the infallibility of Tradition or the Pope is dangerous. The Reformation was God's judgment and correction for the corrupt Rome-centric Church. It is no coincidence that the monsters of totalitarian power both within Europe (Franco, Tito, Hitler, Mussolini, Napoleon, King Leopold, Stalin, Lenin, the numerous Communist dictators, etc.) and even outside Europe were produced EXCLUSIVELY by the two church traditions (RCC & Orthodoxy) which refused to return to the supremacy of Scripture.
@@annefranciselizabeth3840 I beleive that the "infallibility of scripture" is another form of idolatry. The Reformation tried to get rid of one idol (the infallibility of tradition and the Church) by replacing it with another idol. All you have to do is be honest to yourself to realise that there are passages of scripture that are clearly wrong. (For example, what Paul sais about women in some places). The saints that wrote scripture are people too and can make mistakes too.
@@dimitris.mouroulis You are again absolutely correct. RC fundamentalism situates authority in an “infallible” man. Protestant fundamentalism situates authority in an “infallible” book (a much safer error than Romanist fundamentalism, but still an error). It is not the Bible per se that is infallible, but the Word of God. Therefore, a truly Catholic faith community must try to discern the mind of God, who only is infallible. This discernment starts by listening to the Scriptures, then to the Church (both triumphant and militant), and finally to Reason. It is this widest possible breath of discernment that is truly "Catholic". The decision of the Church gathered in Council MUST be obeyed by her members, unless such a decision is contrary to Scripture. This obedience is NOT because the Church is infallible, but reflects the child-like love which Christians owe their leadership, under God. Pontifical Infallibilty is the worst possible anti-thesis of true Catholic magisterium. The Reformed Churches’ ecclesiology is actually more Catholic than that of the so-called Roman Catholic Church!
What do Catholics actually believe about papal infallibility? It doesn't mean the Pope is perfect, never sins, or never makes mistakes. It doesn't mean he has perfect personal beliefs about every issue or that everything he says is correct. To understand infallibility, consider the following: 1. The Bible is the inerrant, infallible word of God. 2. The men who wrote the New Testament were not infallible. 3. However, they wrote the word of God infallibly because they were inspired by God through the power of the Holy Spirit, who protected them from error. 4. This protection from error was limited to when God was using them to communicate the truths of the faith and not to everything they said or did. Similarly, the Catholic Church teaches that papal infallibility operates in the same manner; the Pope is protected from error by the Holy Spirit in matters of faith and doctrine, especially when defining doctrine in line with Apostolic tradition. God did not physically take over the bodies of the New Testament authors to move their pens nor did He dictate scripture word for word. He inspired the sacred writers by the power of the Holy Spirit and protected them from error. This does not mean that everything they ever said and did was infallible. God only protected them from error when He was using them to communicate the truths of the faith. That is what Catholicism teaches about papal infallibility. In the same way that the Holy Spirit protected the biblical writers from errors in matters of faith, Catholics believe that protection remains on the Pope, who is the successor to St. Peter, given the keys to the Kingdom by Jesus in Matthew 16."
@@rem7502 Peter was rebuked for his hypocritical behavior. Peter had already opened the door to the Gentiles, but when some brothers "from James" in Jerusalem arrived, he pulled back from the Gentiles and didn't want to eat with them. Here is the passage from scripture: _“When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. _*_Before certain men came _from James,_* he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. (Galatians 2:11-14)_ IOW, Peter was saying one thing, but doing another. Paul was right to call him out for his behavior. Later, at the Council in Jerusalem, Peter laid down the rules regarding the Gentiles, and the Council agreed with him. Peter's doctrine was correct all along even when he didn't behave as he should.
The Church got along just fine for 1800 years without this doctrine. The only thing it accomplished was to put the last nail in the coffin or reunion with the Eastern Orthodox Church. I have an additional objection: if you take the example of an evil pope, let's say Innocent III, a genocidal pope who had the Cathars and those living among them exterminated. You are saying that the Lord cares more about non-essential theological correctness of Peter's successor than he does about such a morally degraded condition in his Vicar on Earth. This kind of thinking in the Church of Rome is highly legalistic, one of the major objections held by the Eastern Orthodox Church regarding Latin theology. I think this topic needs a deeper level of examination.
All the circling done around the Pope infallibility only shows the Catholic Churches ability to muddy the word of god. Jesus is and will only ever be the infallible word of god manifested in human flesh. Not the Pope
Which Pope? The Orthodox Pope of Alexandria, the Coptic Pope of Alexandria, the Catholic Pope of Rome (there should also be an Orthodox Pope of Rome)? No, no one bishop is infallible; the entire Church is infallible.
I remember my dad explaining it to me as a child, when St. Paul VI was pope: "The pope can't say the sky is green and the grass is blue. He can only declare what the Church has always taught, even if the people in old fashioned times didn't exactly understand it well enough to explain it. And it can *never* go against the Bible." The timing on this is something, though -- the day yo uploaded it, I came across a comment on instagram saying that Catholics believe the pope can "make up doctrine," and showed "proof" with a highlighted comment by Catholic Answers...which doesn't say the pope can make up his own doctrine, obviously.
Christ is risen
The word "always" can often be a trap.
Also worth noting, not everything the pope says is in that area of infallibility.
The pope could say vanilla is the best ice cream flavor, but unless he’s talking ex cathedra what he says is not infallible.
Besides we all know cookie dough is the best flavor ;P
What about when the Bible goes against itself?
With every video, Br. Casey you strengthen my journey back to the faith. Bless you and your ministry and I will celebrate the day of your ordination.
The presenter is either ignorant or dishonest. The truth is that the RCC has no defined boundary as to what papal authority means and where infallibility starts and ends. For example, when Popes canonize Saints (to whom Romanists must pray), it is not strictly "ex cathedra" action. But if one cannot be sure a saint is in heaven, the whole clever scheme of praying to/through saints would collapse. Therefore, Romanists pretend (without any dogmatic basis) that every canonization shenanigan is infallible, until a saint is created whom they don't like, as recently happened when traditionalists launched spirited campaigns against “Saints” John XXIII and Pius VI. It is unbelievable the folly that humans can invent once they stop using the Bible as a check for dogma.
@@annefranciselizabeth3840We dont need to oray to saints but we can
Hi, bro... I'm from New Delhi in india. I am watching all your videos. Keep up the good work...God bless you!
Bangalore here 📍
An Indian watching from UAE🙏
God bless you too
Kerala here
I get it now:
Peccata = sin
Im-peccata = without sin
Impeccabl = sinless.
Excellent presentation. I am able to use this in my World Religions class in a secular public school. Thank you for your scholarly and straightforward presentations.
Napoleon Bonaparte:
**Laughs as he crowns himself Emperor**
Very well researched and presented. You knocked the ball out of the park on this one. Keep up the good work.
Amen! My family and I are catholic converts. This doctrine was so hard to wrap my head around. Eventually it did make sense. This is a great video. A wonderful presentation of a complex issue. Thank you!
I'm a dedicated Protestant and I just subscribed.
It seems that i am finding less reasons to stay Protestant, i am concerned
Jesus founded the Catholic Church. Please don’t stay Protestant.
Hi brother Cole, watch all videos and learning a lot. Keep up the good work
This video helped me out immensely. I always understood the role of the Pope within our Catholic doctrine, but I’ve always found it to be quite difficult to articulate everything to non-Catholics. You did an excellent job explaining everything thoroughly - I appreciated this video tremendously. Thank you, Fr. Casey!
So blessed that I found your channel. Keep up the hard work!
My issue with pure papal infallibility is this, not but a few lines after Jesus ordained Peter the first pope, Satan actually entered Peter to attempt to act as a stumbling block. (Matt 16: 18-23)
Now if Satan enter St Peter, a man who witnessed first hand the miracles of Christ and was his most trusted apostle then how much more would this happen as we slowly approach the end times?
Especially with the positions Pope Francis has took on many things, we also have Pope Leo XIII’s vision took take heed of.
But Peter was not defining doctrine when Satan entered him
This video is helpful. I’m a theology student pursuing a master’s degree. Because when I joined the Church I was catechized in a FSSP parish by other connections I’ve had connection with those who hold a Catholic identity but are not united to the Holy See. Stripping my nuance I’m referring to Sedavacantists. In my time of dialogue with them I find them to be truly kind hearted people of good will that have simply found themselves confused in a situation no one asked for. The primary point made by many sedavacantists is on this issue. Because post conciliator popes do not meet their frankly unreasonable standard there is discontinuity. I’m sure like me given the great faith of these people the situation is truly heartbreaking. Can you reply to me and give me what suggestions you may have in this situation?
Are you still pursuing your theological studies? Did you ever connect with Father Casey?
I fear you're backing up a little too far. Popes have been speaking with full knowledge of their infallibility since the earliest days of the church. The dogmatic definition given in Vatican I gave very precise limits to it, but it in no means invented the Idea for it to be later retroactively projected onto earlier popes. The word "infallible" was first applied to the pope by Patriarch John IV of Jerusalem in the 5th century, but we have descriptions of the idea from the second century through the writings of Irenaeus of Lyons. It also doesn't say that they need to declare the teaching infallible, only that it has to be by the full authority of their office. An ol' "And I mean it Stanley" should suffice. Every canonization, for instance, is an infallible declaration of the Dogmatic fact that the person in question is in heaven.
You are the honest one. Romanists have no defined boundary as to what papal authority means and where infallibility starts and ends. For example, when Popes canonize Saints (to whom Romanists must pray), it is not strictly "ex cathedra" action. But if one cannot be sure a saint is in heaven, the whole clever scheme of praying to/through saints would collapse. Therefore, Romanists pretend (without any dogmatic basis) that every canonization shenanigan is infallible, until a saint is created whom they don't like, as recently happened when traditionalists launched spirited campaigns against “Saints” John XXIII and Pius VI. It is unbelievable the folly that humans can invent once they stop using the Bible as a check for dogma.
Can you give me a source for the John IV quote?
Thanks for the video. This misconception has led many to sin. Good to see someone within the church brave enough to talk about the Pope.
+Breaking in the Habit..Yes..I was agreeing with you. I have learned this from another church who had titled men I listened to..and was mislead. Listening to people..we can always be mislead. I have learned it is best to Seek Jesus..Alone. If we belong to a church..we should still be very careful we are listening to Jesus First.
So what if he does get it wrong while in declared "ex cathedra"? Do you throw away that whole principle? ...or just the principal?
You explained this to me very well. Thanks!
Hi brother, peace to you! What about the teachings of St. John Paul II in Humanea Vitae, for example? I'm quite sure that those teachings match the conditions you mentioned in the video. I think you're totally right when you say that there hasn't been any abuse of this kind of papal prerogative, but limit its use to one time seems a little bit too strict to my knowledge of the field.
Many thanks from Italy, God bless!
Hi Emiliiano. Do you mean the teachings of John Paul II *and* Humanae Vitae, because Paul VI wrote Humanae Vitae. In the case of Humanae Vitae, it does not fit all three criteria because nowhere in the document does he invoke his full apostolic authority. Rather, as an encyclical (a medium level document of authority) he is clarifying a question with some general advice. If he intended it to be infallibly taught, he would have issued in in a different style of document, one with a lot more weight, and specifically said that he was teaching from his full authority.
John Paul II, on the other hand, had an interesting situation regarding the letter ORDINATIO SACERDOTALIS. Some have believed that he was teaching infallibly regarding the ordination of only men, but others have refuted this. At this point, it's a bit unclear, which makes me believe that it is not infallibly taught.
@@BreakingInTheHabit Apologies brother, I got confused with the two names "Evangelium Vitae" and "Humanae Vitae". Take "Evangelium Vitae" n. 57 when the Pope writes "Therefore, by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors, and in communion with the Bishops of the Catholic Church, I confirm that the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being is always gravely immoral". Doesn't that count as an infallible teaching? A similar statement can be found, also, at point 62 with regard to abortion.
Maybe I'm getting a little bit confused also on the reiteration and confirmation of a concept previously believed or expressed by the Church and the faithful. In the case of "Ordination Sacerdotalis", the teaching regarding ordination of only men has been repeated many times before that document was written, and even recently by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith based on it (cfr. www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/ladaria-ferrer/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20180529_caratteredefinitivo-ordinatiosacerdotalis_en.html). Doesn't that count as infallible teaching either?
Thanks brother, may God richly bless you and your ministry!
It would, I guess, be infallible teaching if it weren't already dogmatic in nature. John Paul II isn't really teaching that killing is bad, he's reiterating what has already been identified as divine law: God said it first and we have accepted this for centuries.
@@BreakingInTheHabitWhat if the Pope has serious conflicts regarding Hell and ends up believing without-a-shadow-of-doubt that annihilation is correct?
You should do a video too on the definition of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary! There are many sheeples out there who are clueless about that too! They think Our Lady was conceived just as miraculously as Jesus Christ was, or that she is somehow divine (outside of her Divine Motherhood of the Son of God).
I wasn't well-catechized in youth, but learned about the Immaculate Conception as an adult. And then a veteran English teacher argued with me, because she had gone through Catholic schools all her life and "learned" that Jesus is the Immaculate Conception. So many misconceptions abound!
By the way the immculate conception is an Islamic ideology very clear in the Coran in Sourat Mariam (Mary) perhaps the Infallible Pope got confused and get it from their
@@ghassanmina Complete nonsense!
@@francoisegregyi9527 what is the non sense the filioque controversy or the islamique idiology of the imaculate conception of the Vergin Mary?
@@ghassanmina First of all, do you really understand what the "Filioque" and "the Immaculate Conception" are about in the Catholic sense? It appears you don't! It's no good just throwing Catholic terms about and attributing one to Islam! Stop bring so childish or wasting your time being a troll!
An excellent illustration of the subject.
In light of the difficulty and the impracticality of the "infallibility" teaching, I wonder if it would have been more beneficial if this position was never made into a doctrine. The Church already had its teaching magisterium established, so all matters of faith and truth would have been better understood and accepted through this office, instead of added papal authority on top. The fact that it has been practiced so rarely shows its deficiency, instead, it becomes a hurdle and stumbling block for Catholics everywhere. It constantly needs to be explained away. What do you think Br. Casey?
When Pope Pius IX defined the term Papal Infallibility he had to go against the desires of a bunch of Gallican opponents (mainly French and German bishops who maintained that all bishops are equal in primacy of jurisdiction to the Roman Pontiff). Oddly enough, they reasoned the same way as you do: it's not expedient to define such as thing as a dogma. But Pope Pius IX knew better than these proud prelates.
@@hYpNoXiDe Beloved, Jesus called Peter to be first among equals but not as a Supreme Pontiff, nor did Jesus create a transferable infallibility as claimed by Pius IX. There is absolutely no doubt about that (if you choose to believe the Bible).
The Rome-centric church became so corrupted by power and wealth that it began altering Apostolic ethos. Today, Pope Francis is mortally embarrassed by papal infallibility. He has criticized it indirectly several times. He has also officially dropped all the titles that suggest Infallibility, such as “Vicar of Jesus Christ” (“Vicario di Gesù Cristo”), Successor of the Prince of the Apostles, Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, etc. That dogma has made the RC Church a laughing stock.
I am certain that no Pope will dare speak "ex cathedra" again!
But jokes aside, Pontifical infallibility is a deadly ecclesiastical poison. Among many ill effects, lets state only 5:
i. It quenches the Spirit: that is why RC hymn writers are often converts or ecumenists. Cardinal Newman could not have written “Souls of men” if he did not have the fortune of starting life as an Anglican. When RCs sing "Amazing Grace" or "Blessed Assurance" or "Abide with me" one often wonders if they realize that RCs have a psychological block from attaining such depth of Christian expression mainly because of the RC ethos of infallibility which situates inspiration in a man rather than in the Word of God.
ii. It quenches accountability of the hierarchy - there is “trickle-down” quasi-infallibility of Cardinals, Bishops and even ordinary priests and religious. Many RC parish priests speak "ex cathedra" in their own little corners even more stridently than the Supreme Pontiff. That is what is at the root of the explosive scandals.
iii. It quenches interest in the Word of God - why bother when one man has all the answers?
iv. It quenches Evangelism - people are not eager to spread a Word which is not definitive but is subject to tinkering and "interpretation" via a system led by a man who is chosen by a fallible conclave. That is why most converts to Christianity become evangelicals. RC faith is very often sterile ("immaculate", but no "conception"!!!
)
v. It quenches Integrity. Lets take a simple example. Apart from the arch-conservatives, most RC clergy tell me in secret that they reject the encyclical Humanae Vitae. Yet, against the dictates of their own informed conscience, they must defend it publicly, only because the Pope is "infallible".
IN SUMMARY, PIUS XII WAS AN UNMITIGATED DISASTER! MOREOVER, NEITHER POPE FRANCIS NOR ANYONE ELSE HAS FIGURED OUT HOW TO GET OUT OF THE INFALLIBILITY DEBACLE WITHOUT LOOSING FACE.
Hi, could I please get the transcript of this teaching? I'd like to translate it/generate subtitles in Finnish language... This video has already Spanish subtitles, also that would work as a basis for a translation.. I just need it in text format...
You should make a video about the Px symbol and what it means to Catholics
The christogram?
Thank You Br Casey!
1 Timothy 3:15 Is talking about impeccability (or virtue) rather than infallibility
Thank you for explaining this Father!.
I had a hard time explaining this to others,
Now I can just point them to your video.
There's no way I can explain it that well!
This is so important to understand, fr Casey! Many thanks! God bless you!
Why there was such strong resistance against that particular doctrine within the Church. Quite few bishops and cardinals were against it. Lord Acton, historian himself , was against it as there was no historical precedence to support such doctrine. Could you comment on that please? It's one of the few important obstacles preventing Orthodox Church from seeking unity with Rome, isn't it?
Douche Bagowicz. The orthodox will use any excuse to disobey our Lord when He prayed for his disciples to keep united.
@@marcmarc8524 you realise it's exactly the same position they hold?
Lord Acton was obviously uninformed because he obviously did not know about Pope Vigilius.
Thousands of denominations who follow biblical Christianity are far more positive in the divine economy than one humongous cult which is leading people away from genuine Christianity.
Papal infallibility (the basis for the enforced Romanist "unity") is extremely damaging to true Christian witness. Among many ill effects, lets state only five:
i. It quenches the Spirit: that is why RC hymn writers are often converts or ecumenists. Cardinal John Newman could not have written “Souls of men” if he did not have the fortune of starting life as an Anglican. When RCs sing "Amazing Grace" or "Blessed Assurance" or "Abide with me" one often wonders if they realize that Romanists have a psychological block from attaining such levels of Christian expression mainly because of the Romanist ethos of infallibility which situates inspiration in an artificial mechanism rather than in the Word of God.
ii. It quenches accountability of the hierarchy - there is “trickle-down” quasi-infallibility of Cardinals, Bishops and even ordinary priests and religious. Many Romanist parish priests speak "ex cathedra" in their own little corners even more stridently than the Supreme Pontiff. That is what is at the root of the explosive scandals. That is also why Pope Francis can ignore very valid appeals for him to be accountable.
iii. It quenches interest in the Word of God - why bother when the Pope has all the answers?
As a rule RCs do not take Bible Study seriously.
iv. It quenches Evangelism - people are not eager to spread a Word which is not definitive but is subject to tinkering and "interpretation" through a system led by a man who is elected by a fallible conclave. That is why the vast majority of converts to Christianity become evangelical Christians. Romanism is often a dead end ("Immaculate" but no "Conception").
v. It quenches Integrity. Lets take a simple example. Apart from the arch-conservatives, most Romanists tell me in private that they reject the encyclical Humanae Vitae. Yet, against the dictates of their own conscience, they must defend it publicly, only because the Pope is "infallible".
May I suggest that you read Saint Justin Popovic writing on ecumenism and infallible.
Does anyone know why the bishops at Vatican I put forth the doctrine of infallibility? It apparently was not necessary for the first 18 centuries of the Church's existence and doctrine had been defined by council. What was the impetus for Vat I to define this?
A wonderful explanation Brother for this present time, where even Catholics are confused as to what to make of certain statements by our current Pope.
Hey Fr. Casey, I'm pretty new to Catholicism, so I'm still learning church history. When was the last time the Pope issued an infallable teaching? My guess would be Humanae Vitea...but I'm not 100% sure. Thanks!
6:29 There has only ever been one infallible statement issued with the intention of being infallible.
The three core heresies of Rome are Pontifical Infallibility, Salvation by Works and Tradition imposed upon Scripture.
The truth is, the Word preceded the Church. First, most of the Bible (the Old Testament) was given pre-Pentecost. Secondly, the Gospels were given by Jesus pre-Pentecost (although they may not have been compiled into a "book"). The Epistles are a commentary on the Gospel. Jesus and the Apostles regarded the OT as settled Scripture. For the NT, the Church simply listed the books that had Apostolic authority.
This basic truth is so important that it bears repeating: it is the Word that forms the Church and not the Church that forms the Word. The Word has always been in existence (being God Himself). The Spirit inspired men to write down aspects of this eternal Word, reaching the fullest expression in the incarnate Christ. It is the Word that is infallible and not the Pope or Tradition. Jesus Himself said so in Mark 7vs9 (you may wish to study all of Mark 7; the Pharisees were the equivalents of the Romanists in that Chapter).
The Church did not give us the Bible, God did. Therefore, the Church cannot teach as dogma anything that is not founded on Scripture.
The Church merely discerned God's Word, guided by the Holy Spirit. And the Church that did the discernment was the Catholic Church, of which the Reformed Churches are the true heirs.
Research what the Church looked like in the writings of the Apostolic Fathers of the 1st and early 2nd century (Ignatius of Antioch, Clement I, Polycarp of Smyrna) and you will see it looks a lot more like Catholicism than 99% of Protestants or people who "don't follow religion, only Christ". Even if the books of the Bible were already mostly completed, these Fathers didn't have any kind of Bible, yet they stayed true to the faith by being taught personally by the Apostles.@@annefranciselizabeth3840
Also, yes obviously the Church did not write the Bible in 393 in Hippo, but that is when it was compiled. If you don't trust the church on anything else, then how can you trust them on compiling scripture, especially considering there is not set of books that the Apostles said should be included in the NT.@@annefranciselizabeth3840
So then how do we understand the "infallibility" of fiducia supplicans
In this video Fr. Casey says that the Bishop of Rome has "always enjoyed" the Supreme Authority given to him by Christ and in another video he says that it was a "development over time." Come on Father, which one is it?
It seems to me that Catholics have a paradox on their hands concerning this issue. There was a time when the Popes (guided by the Holy Spirit) supported the original creed that claimed that the Holy Spirit can only proceed from the Father. Then Pope Benedict VIII changed the original creed and added the filioque and said that the Holy Spirit can proceed from the Father and Son. Doesn't this mean that the early popes were not guided by the Holy Spirit and were fallible?
Excellent explanation. Thanks very much.
Only on matters of Faith and Morals.
Nice one ,Praise the LORD
Thank you, Fr Casey!
Hello. Genuine question. If the Pope is doctrinally infallible, then how come Paul publically rebuked Peter for doctrinal issues?
Please watch the video. The pope is not doctrinally infallible. All is explained in the video.
Best Wishes from Bonnie Scotland !!!
So the pope has a switch, whether he chooses to speak in line with his position, that makes it infalliable and when he chooses to just speak for himself, then he is not infalliable?.Where in the bible, we can see that?.. Another one, you said that when the certain criteria are met, then its irreformable, again, where in the bible we can see that?.. the bible should be our final authority, it is the word of God and not just any doctrine instituted by a person. God bless brother
Scriptural basis: Matthew 16:16-20, John 20:22-23.
But we have to remember that the Bible is not the only source of truth. ua-cam.com/video/5PCOA6imZhc/v-deo.html
@@BreakingInTheHabit Matthew 16:16-20 Does not Give Peter the ultimate authority. Jesus is referring to himself as the Big Rock ( Petra in Greek), Peter's name in Greek is petros. Jesus refers to himself as the foundation and authority of church. even apostle Paul addressed Jesus as the rock (petra) in 1 Corinthians 10:4. John 20:23 on the other hand does not mean authority to forgive sins lies in the apostles, forgiveness of Sins can only be found in Jesus, John 20:23 states that Jesus is sending the apostles by the help of the Holy spirit to proclaim the Good news that forgiveness of Sins can only be found in Jesus. God bless
@@josephjr.balazo6440 that doesn’t make any sense for Jesus to tell himself he would hand the keys to himself, also Simon was referred to Peter signifying the important role he would play.
Informative and great video!
Still the idea that another human being (saints,pops,priests) can erase sin seems ungodly to me this is my problem with the church im not a christian just a seeker-of truth
I’ve been watching your videos for hours ( I will save a long story for now but suffice it to say you have my attention) I’m requesting a side bar here would you be willing to do a video on a compare and contrast of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin compared to the Eastern
understanding of The Dormition of the Theotokos?
Can you clarify it more? Because the video is a bit ambiguous I got even more confused
is the recent teaching about death penalty infallable?
TheGuardian. You should watch this video more carefully.
What about the Immaculate Conception? Pope Pius IX, in 1854? Dogma, Doctrine taught by the Church to be believed by all the faithful as part of divine revelation. Fr. John Hardon S.J.
Yes, but the definition of papal infallibility was not promulgated until 1871. The Immaculate Conception is infallibly taught, but was done so without the understanding of infallibility as we have it today.
@@BreakingInTheHabit Yes. But I am just pointing this out. There are so many out there who say venomous things about the Pope. As a returning Catholic, it breaks my heart because I wasn't raised that way.
The problem is that when men come up with a doctrine that contradicts biblical doctrine it is a false doctrine period , the council of Trent is men creating man's doctrine that in many ways contradictory to biblical doctrine , and no man today has apostolic authority, the last apostle was Paul and there are 12 seats in revelation for the apostles of Jesus Christ not 266
Hey Fr Casey, am I right to say that when the Pope speaks infallibly he represents the unified voice of all the fellow bishops (apostolic successors) in faith and morals?
Yes, exactly. Not necessarily that there is 100% consensus, but he speaks with the bishops rather than against them.
@@BreakingInTheHabit A PETRINE SUPREME PONTIFF IS A ROMANIST INVENTION
THE JERUSALEM COUNCIL (ACTS 15)
The task of governing the Early Church fell to St. James. St. James the Just was the Patriarch of Jerusalem (the headquarters of the Early Church, later supplanted by Rome)
Because he was the Primate of the headquarters, James played 4 roles at that Council, viz:
i. Convener
ii. Host
iii. President and
iv. final Arbiter
In today's RCC, all these roles are played by a so-called Successor of Peter, whereas the historical Peter did not play any of these roles.
Please refer to Acts 15.19 where James issues the Apostolic Decree of St. James. Notice that St. James says “It is my judgment, therefore…” and NOT: “It is our judgment, therefore…”.
No Romanist Cardinal/Primate of today's RCC would dare use such language in the presence of a Pope ("Supreme Pontiff & Head of the Universal Church")
CONCLUSION: Peter was never Pope
@@annefranciselizabeth3840
quote; Please refer to Acts 15.19 where James issues the Apostolic Decree of St. James. Notice that St. James says “It is my judgment, therefore…” and NOT: “It is our judgment, therefore…”.
I don't see anything about an "Apostolic Decree of St. James" mentioned there? It is important to point out that the Greek word "krino" can also mean "I think it good" which would be more like someone's opinion on the matter. Regardless, verse 28 explains "For it has seemed good to the HOLY SPIRIT AND TO US to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things...."
ok, did the Church (both eastern and western) until the great schism accept papal infallibility?
No, the Orthodox Church believes (rightly) that Papal Infallibility is a heresy. It is the single most important reason for the rejection of Rome by the Orthodox Church, which is the cradle of Christianity. Since Peter was never Bishop of Rome (the Bible calls Peter "Apostle to the Circumcised"), the Roman Catholics have built a great edifice based on absolutely nothing!
The idea of an "Infallible Pope" is vehemently rejected by EVERY Christian denomination (except Rome). In order words the doctrine is universally rejected by Christians. That is why the present Pope has dropped the title "Vicar of Christ" and "Head of the Universal Church", etc. Pope Francis is so embarrassed by the infallibility nonsense.
@@annefranciselizabeth3840
quote; The idea of an "Infallible Pope" is vehemently rejected by EVERY Christian denomination (except Rome)
Give me one good reason why the Catholic Church should be concerned that infallibility is rejected by EVERY denomination?
Br. Casey,
If the Pope was teaching or speaking on church doctrine or quoting scripture without his personal opinion on it,
Does it make it infallible?
In order for it to be infallible teaching, it must include all three of the criteria I mentioned.
@@BreakingInTheHabit,
I re-watched the video, I must have missed that, sorry.
Thank you for reply.
Blessings
Thank you Bro. Casey. You rock
So is it more accurate to say the papacy, not the Pope is infallible?
can you talk more about Mary, and why we believe in her Immaculate Conception and Assumption?
Thank you for this clear explanation; however, do you agree that, in History, particularly when the Holy See played a political role, his defenders (on the political side, so the "papists"), papal infaillibility was already implied, in his common and false meaning, as a political weapon ?
Imagine br Casey as pope
maybe
oh no pls not
I'll have to double-check, brother, but I think your assertion that papal infallibility was only used once - the Assumption - is wrong. If my memory of my own studies is correct, papal infallibility was also used tp declare the Immaculate Conception. That would be twice. The very rarely used point is well taken, though.
Go back to 6:43 and be careful to listen to what I'm actually saying. There has only been one instance when this was used with knowledge that it was being used. Others have fit the criteria and been retroactively accepted as infallible, but only the Assumption was promulgated after this doctrine. The Immaculate Conception was promulgated in 1854, two decades before the definition of infallibility.
@@BreakingInTheHabit Good answer. 😀
And WHY did that take nearly *1900* years do U suppose? I know Catholic *theologians* still wrestling with *that* issue, actually...sigh.
I’m a Protestant; raised that way, but this is making a lot of sense.
Very clear (and reassuring!) explanation.
From what I gather, the Holy Spirit helps the Pope retain Jesus’s original teachings, which is infallible. Any aspect that the Pope may embellish (i.e. make more strict/rigid than originally intended) is not necessary infallible. Am I correct?
The three core heresies of Rome are Pontifical Infallibility, Salvation by Works and Tradition imposed upon Scripture.
The truth is, the Word preceded the Church. First, most of the Bible (the Old Testament) was given pre-Pentecost. Secondly, the Gospels were given by Jesus pre-Pentecost (although they may not have been compiled into a "book"). The Epistles are a commentary on the Gospel. Jesus and the Apostles regarded the OT as settled Scripture. For the NT, the Church simply listed the books that had Apostolic authority.
The Church did not give us the Bible, God did. Therefore, the Church cannot teach as dogma anything that is not founded on Scripture.
This basic truth is so important that it bears repeating: it is the Word that forms the Church and not the Church that forms the Word. The Word has always been in existence (being God Himself). The Spirit inspired men to write down aspects of this eternal Word, reaching the fullest expression in the incarnate Christ. It is the Word that is infallible and not the Pope or Tradition. Jesus Himself said so in Mark 7vs9 (you may wish to study all of Mark 7; the Pharisees were the equivalents of the Romanists in that Chapter).
Then what is vatican 1and vacant 2 po ?
All teachings in all church's throughout Catholic Greek Orthodox Protestant etc etc have all erred from the saints of the Roman Catholic Church with Luther huss Calvin Wesley all never claimed they were infallible. The assumption of Mary, the sinlessness of Mary.before and after the virgin birth.
The Reformation was God's judgment and correction for the corrupt Rome-centric Church. The Reformers condemned three key doctrines that are poison to Christian spirituality - Salvation by Works, Tradition set over Scripture and Papal Infallibility. The effect of rejecting the Reformation is dire. It is no coincidence that the monsters of totalitarian power both within Europe (Franco, Tito, Hitler, Mussolini, Napoleon, King Leopold, Stalin, Lenin, the numerous Communist dictators, etc.) and even outside Europe were produced EXCLUSIVELY by the two church traditions (RCC & Orthodoxy) which refused to return to the supremacy of Scripture.
In the divine economy of grace, the thousands of often acrimonious "Protestant" sects are more useful to God that the humongous anti-Church falsely called the Catholic Church.
Wonderful explanation!
Well explained 🙌
The canon was closed in AD66, no more revelation. Even the apostles themselves knew they were not infallible, which is why they never privately interpreted the divine revelation they received.
Good explanation for these weird times
Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary is 1, Immaculate Conception is 2. You mention only one, please advise...
As I said in the video, only one was promulgated AFTER the definition of papal infallibility during the first Vatican Council. There are other statements that are infallibly thought, but only one that came about after the doctrine was defined.
1. Jesus cannot teach error. (cf. Jn 14:6)
2. Anyone who hears Jesus cannot hear error.
3. Anyone who hears Jesus’ apostles cannot hear error. (cf. Jn 16:13)
4. The Church speaks in the name of Jesus and His apostles. (cf. Mt 16:18-19)
5. Therefore, the authority of the Church which speaks in the name of Jesus cannot err.
6. Therefore, the Church's authority is infallible, equivalent to the authority of Christ himself.
And yet the Catholic Church transferee the solemnity of the biblical Saturday sabbath to the first day of the week Sunday as a Sabbath. So pipes have and do change even biblical teachings and have had Catholic friends that are active in their church say “what leaves the lips of the pope is the same as God speaking”
The 1854, Immaculate Conception by Ineffabilis Deus is 'generally accepted' as being an ex-cathedra statement. Due to that, they had to define the Pope's infallibly and did so in 1870.
If you believe in the tradition (faith and tradition, right?) of the infallibility of the Pope's office, there are several and possibly more:
Tome to Flavian, Pope Leo I, Year 449
Letter of Pope Agatho, Year 680
Benedictus Deus, Pope Benedict XII, Year 1336
Cum occasione, Pope Innocent X, Year 1653
Auctorem fidei, Pope Pius VI, Year 1794
Ineffabilis Deus, Pope Pius IX, Year 1854
Munificentissimus Deus, Pope Pius XII, Year 1950
Thank you Father. I try to make this clear to non Catholics because it's so often misunderstood and used against Catholics.
Thank you. Can you please show me in the Bible were the name
"Pope" is mentioned. By the way I am Catholic.
Carole: NOWHERE! :-(
Carole St.louis : NOWHERE! :-(
Carole St. louis Well, the answer to your question is simply: it’s not in the Bible. Just like the words Cheese Burger, Beef Steak, Kebab and Dumplings, aren’t found in the Bible as well. Yet we know that these items are what the Bible describes as ‘Daily Bread’ ‘Blessings’ ‘Meal’ ‘Feasts’ and ‘Food’. So in the same concept, the word ‘Pope’ refers to ‘Authority’ ‘Minister’ ‘Priest’ ‘Shepherd’ ‘Leader’ ‘Spiritual Father’ etc.
Also, the question you asked would fall into an example of ‘Scripture Alone’ or ‘Solo Scriptura’ as the Protestants call it. Hope this helped. ☺️
Where is the word 'trinity' mentioned in the Bible? Just because the literal word isn't there doesn't mean that the teaching isn't there.
Jesus made peter his first Pope... book of Matthew
Nicely explained, but it avoids the main issue. As a Protestant friend explained, she well knows the strict limitations of infallibility, the problem is that the very mention of infallibility bestowed on a single person sounds uniquely arrogant, and brings the tradition and horrors of absolute monarchy and the divine right of kings into the room. Papal authority might not be undemocratic, but with this ill-conceived doctrine, it sure as hell sounds like it. So people switch off to what they see as the cult of Catholicism. I see their point.
This is ground breaking from a Protestant
Is the parish priest infallible in social doctrine?
The parish priest is not infallible in anything. Only the pope, in these very specific situations, can teach infallibly.
@@BreakingInTheHabit . Only God is infallible
Good question. The heresy of Papal Infallibility quenches accountability of the hierarchy in the RCC, because there is “trickle-down” quasi-infallibility of Cardinals, Bishops and even ordinary priests and religious. Many RC parish priests speak "ex cathedra" in their own little corners even more stridently than the Supreme Pontiff. That is what is at the root of the explosive scandals. That is also why Pope Francis can ignore very valid appeals for him to be accountable.
@@ewaldradavich7307
Did Paul believe he was infallible or not about his teaching?
@@annefranciselizabeth3840
In short, infallibility doctrine states:
1)God preserves the pope from error when HE definitively teaches a doctrine of faith or morals.
2)When the pope and bishops convened in an ecumenical council join in a solemn teaching act.
3)The infallibility of the "ordinary magisterium" -- that is, the teaching authority of bishops in union with the pope, exercised in "ordinary" acts of teaching outside of an ecumenical council.
How about him condemning capital punishment and putting that in the catechism against scripture AND tradition. Or allowing adulterers to take communion, or homosexuals being blessed as a couple? He’s wrong. Papal infallibility is false.
Benedict IX was pretty bad, but then there's John XII who may have been just as bad or worse, lol.
Wow thank you for this I have been wondering about this teaching for sometime. Especially with some of the things Pope Francis has been saying Lately.
Love from Germany ❤
Google Benedict IV??
Who are we to judge?
Papal infallibility means he is correct in what he did, you and I cannot judge.
But if he teaches or interpret the bible falsely what should we do since he can influence 1.5 bill pple
Amazing explanation.
I enjoyed the video. As a Protestant I would just have to ask "Then why even call it infallibility if that is not what is meant?"
It's exactly what it means. The problem is that people don't know what infallible means. They conflate that word with impeccable or inerrant.
@BreakingInTheHabit I'm not trying to be difficult, but Webster's has it as "incapable of error" , "not liable to mislead, deceive or disappoint" , and "incapable of error in defining doctrines touching faith or morals" . I understand you are leaning on the 3rd definition, but it seemed like even that took place in certain settings. Did I understand that correctly?
ya indulgence . Started and Abolished proves what you try to explain . ha
Funny how much Catholic spin there is lately trying to explain how the pope’s recent decree isn’t really as big of a deal as it seems. The Catholic Church has been digging itself into a deeper and deeper hole since Vatican 2, and technically since 1054AD. Might just be a good time to recognize this and rejoin the main body of the 5 original churches that you left out of arrogance way back then. The church of the councils and of the apostles. The Eastern Orthodox Church.
If the pope was married he'd soon realise that he wasn't infallible
What do you mean, brother?
@@josepontaroli6989 It's a marriage joke.
No he would as a pope still be infallible, but as a man he would be doubly fallible and peccable.
Can the Pope end up saying Pope isn't Biblical and Reunite with The Orthodox?
The pope is biblical, so no, he can't. Matthew 16:18.
@@BreakingInTheHabit Jesus LITERALLY didn't "Built the Church" the doctrine it is and Obviously Historically Pope didn't exist until the Constatinople and people don't realise that the Church is The People not a place ... I have to Agree with the Orthodox , Pope ARE Fallible and through history we have seen it .... Both with actions and decisions within the Church ... It's Historically Proven ... Yet Again ...The Orthodox Are Right Again
@@TheBibleCode Did you even watch the video?
@@eatsheet7087 baby go to sleep
That explanation sounds like Catholics jumping through hoops to explain away and obviously flawed teaching. You teach the pope is infallible and then you say well that doesn't mean he's actually infallible and then you concoct some complicated argument that says he is infallible but he isn't infallible and it's just ridiculous.
Anda harus Mengerti dulu Apa yang dimaksud dengan Infalibilitas Paus Ex Cathedra?!
📌 Ajaran Yang Jelas Cacat!
Justru Ajaran Gereja Katolik tidak Cacat Teman! Kenapa Begitu? Ajaran itu yang berasal dari Rasa beriman dari banyak orang dalam pembicaraan bersama. Bukan Ajaran Personal, Bukan Niat-niat Pribadi!.
📌 Bapa Casey Mengarang!
Bapa Casey tidak Mengarang! Itu Pengajarannya bersama dengan Bapa-Bapa yang lain dengan Uskup-Uskup yang lain. Sekali lagi! Ajaran yang diajarkan Bapa Casey itu bukan Ajaran Personal!.
📌 Dia tidak bisa Salah Tetapi Dia bisa Salah itu Konyol!
Anda akan berkutat di lingkaran itu-itu saja. KeTidak Mungkin Salah Pengajaran itu selama Dia bersama dengan Kolegalitas nya Bersama dengan Uskup-Uskup lainnya. Dia bisa salah! INGAT! Paus adalah Manusia tetapi Anda bisa pelajari Apa yang dilakukan selama Hidupnya!
Itu Kenapa Gereja Katolik menekankan Unisitas. Kesatuan Dalam Keberagaman!
So sainting someone isn't infallible?
It is
@@generalyousif3640 do you have an official, Vatican source on that?
Good explanation, but as you know, the Orthodox reject Papal infallibility.
Br. Casey is a very likeable and moderate person. In my oppinion, however, any beleif that any human institution (including any church) can be infallible in its doctorine about God is naive and dangerous. We all need reference points, but the solution isn't to beleive in the infallibility of any institutions' teachings. it would be better for us to have the humility and courage to realize that we simply cannot know (unless God decides to reveal himself).
I would agree with you... if the Church was a human institution. The Church was founded by Christ and is led by the Holy Spirit. There are humans in leadership roles, but it is beyond just human agency.
@@BreakingInTheHabit Thank you for responding, brother Casey, and I respect your perspective. In my oppinion, however, the Church is led by the Holy Spirit only to the extent that the people of the Church are open to the Holy Spirit. Christ didn't grant any "copyright" or infallibility to any institution. We do need a Church in the sence that we need a family of people that strive for God together. But families can be wrong. Not to mention that when families get institutionalised they can cease to be real families (if they loose their love for one another). Thank you for being open to listen to my oppinion. :)
@@dimitris.mouroulis What you affirm is no mere theory, but a vital truth. The subjection of Scripture to the infallibility of Tradition or the Pope is dangerous. The Reformation was God's judgment and correction for the corrupt Rome-centric Church. It is no coincidence that the monsters of totalitarian power both within Europe (Franco, Tito, Hitler, Mussolini, Napoleon, King Leopold, Stalin, Lenin, the numerous Communist dictators, etc.) and even outside Europe were produced EXCLUSIVELY by the two church traditions (RCC & Orthodoxy) which refused to return to the supremacy of Scripture.
@@annefranciselizabeth3840 I beleive that the "infallibility of scripture" is another form of idolatry. The Reformation tried to get rid of one idol (the infallibility of tradition and the Church) by replacing it with another idol. All you have to do is be honest to yourself to realise that there are passages of scripture that are clearly wrong. (For example, what Paul sais about women in some places). The saints that wrote scripture are people too and can make mistakes too.
@@dimitris.mouroulis You are again absolutely correct. RC fundamentalism situates authority in an “infallible” man. Protestant fundamentalism situates authority in an “infallible” book (a much safer error than Romanist fundamentalism, but still an error). It is not the Bible per se that is infallible, but the Word of God.
Therefore, a truly Catholic faith community must try to discern the mind of God, who only is infallible. This discernment starts by listening to the Scriptures, then to the Church (both triumphant and militant), and finally to Reason. It is this widest possible breath of discernment that is truly "Catholic". The decision of the Church gathered in Council MUST be obeyed by her members, unless such a decision is contrary to Scripture. This obedience is NOT because the Church is infallible, but reflects the child-like love which Christians owe their leadership, under God. Pontifical Infallibilty is the worst possible anti-thesis of true Catholic magisterium. The Reformed Churches’ ecclesiology is actually more Catholic than that of the so-called Roman Catholic Church!
Where is the authority of the Synod in all this ?
The Roman Catholic Church is not synodal!
@@francoisegregyi9527 Well, that seems to be a problem ...
Vatican 2 actually restored synodality. Bishops are princes of their individual churches. Fellow successors of the apostles
Why do Catholics call the pope holy father?
In the catholic worldview the pope is the highest bishop perhaps a Bishop of Bishops so he is the guide of all mortal people.
What do Catholics actually believe about papal infallibility?
It doesn't mean the Pope is perfect, never sins, or never makes mistakes. It doesn't mean he has perfect personal beliefs about every issue or that everything he says is correct.
To understand infallibility, consider the following:
1. The Bible is the inerrant, infallible word of God.
2. The men who wrote the New Testament were not infallible.
3. However, they wrote the word of God infallibly because they were inspired by God through the power of the Holy Spirit, who protected them from error.
4. This protection from error was limited to when God was using them to communicate the truths of the faith and not to everything they said or did.
Similarly, the Catholic Church teaches that papal infallibility operates in the same manner; the Pope is protected from error by the Holy Spirit in matters of faith and doctrine, especially when defining doctrine in line with Apostolic tradition.
God did not physically take over the bodies of the New Testament authors to move their pens nor did He dictate scripture word for word. He inspired the sacred writers by the power of the Holy Spirit and protected them from error. This does not mean that everything they ever said and did was infallible. God only protected them from error when He was using them to communicate the truths of the faith.
That is what Catholicism teaches about papal infallibility. In the same way that the Holy Spirit protected the biblical writers from errors in matters of faith, Catholics believe that protection remains on the Pope, who is the successor to St. Peter, given the keys to the Kingdom by Jesus in Matthew 16."
So how come Peter was rebuked by Paul on a significant doctrinal issue regarding the new covenant?
@@rem7502 Peter was rebuked for his hypocritical behavior. Peter had already opened the door to the Gentiles, but when some brothers "from James" in Jerusalem arrived, he pulled back from the Gentiles and didn't want to eat with them. Here is the passage from scripture:
_“When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. _*_Before certain men came _from James,_* he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. (Galatians 2:11-14)_
IOW, Peter was saying one thing, but doing another. Paul was right to call him out for his behavior.
Later, at the Council in Jerusalem, Peter laid down the rules regarding the Gentiles, and the Council agreed with him.
Peter's doctrine was correct all along even when he didn't behave as he should.
The Church got along just fine for 1800 years without this doctrine. The only thing it accomplished was to put the last nail in the coffin or reunion with the Eastern Orthodox Church. I have an additional objection: if you take the example of an evil pope, let's say Innocent III, a genocidal pope who had the Cathars and those living among them exterminated. You are saying that the Lord cares more about non-essential theological correctness of Peter's successor than he does about such a morally degraded condition in his Vicar on Earth. This kind of thinking in the Church of Rome is highly legalistic, one of the major objections held by the Eastern Orthodox Church regarding Latin theology. I think this topic needs a deeper level of examination.
All the circling done around the Pope infallibility only shows the Catholic Churches ability to muddy the word of god. Jesus is and will only ever be the infallible word of god manifested in human flesh. Not the Pope
Which Pope? The Orthodox Pope of Alexandria, the Coptic Pope of Alexandria, the Catholic Pope of Rome (there should also be an Orthodox Pope of Rome)? No, no one bishop is infallible; the entire Church is infallible.
Well, because the pope is highly influenced by politics. Check out Francis' position on uniting Islam, Judaism, and Christianity.