Do you believe the foreign Pope of Italy is infallible?

Post Reply New Topic

Do you believe the foreign Pope of the Vatican is infallible or not? There's a lot of evidence that as a high profile politician from Germany he has intentionally hidden child crimes/child abuse committed by his employees - monks and nuns - from the secular police. If this is so (which most persons believe), is the Italian Catholic church holy? If the Pope of the Vatican is fallible, it means the whole church of Italy is also in major error and that no one can believe, with certainly, anything which they say in their daily press releases or any of their dogma at all. The Italian Catholic church has become like the Watchtower folks - the Jehovah's Witnesses - a cult which very few subscribe to. Of course, people are free to subscribe to whatever non-profit religion they want and people do. Many people feel that Mormonism is the one and only true religion - a belief which is also held by the Church of Scientology from Hollywood, California. Of course, Islam views all those groups as unsaved and holds out that only those who believe in Mecca, Saudi Arabia, are truly close to Allah/the one and only God. People can believe in any religion they want as is displayed by persons who contribute love gifts to the Televangelists on a regular basis. The two most recent presidential candidates (Obama, McCain) subscribed to the belief system of Saddleback Church, California - a Christian church - where Obama and McCain discussed church dogma and doctrine.

The sins of one person within an institution does not damn the entire institution. Each is answerable for its own crimes. While the church must answer for the systemic coverup in which it engaged, it is not required to answer for the individual crimes of each person within it, unless the Church became complicit in those crimes through its systemic coverup.



Typical misconstruction of the doctrine of infallability. Papal infallability only arises in pronouncements of church teaching made ex cathedra where infallability is specifically invoked. It has been done precisely twice in history since the doctrine was established in the 19th century.

Your logic is demonstrably fallible. So does the same apply to all of your expressions of opinion? Of course not. So why extend a different standard to others than you expect to be accorded to you?



So, people are free to believe in any religion they want. Which means, of course, that people are free to believe that the Pope is capable of revealing infallible truth.

I certainly don't believe in it--but who are we to criticize those who do?

Technically, the pope is sovereign over Vatican City, a microstate within the city of Rome. Roman Catholic dogma teaches that the pope is infallible in religious, spiritual, and moral affairs.

He's a human and head of the catholic church, he's anything but infallible.


That includes the black pope as well.

Well, he's not really the "foreign Pope of Italy" since Vatican City is a separate state from the Italian Republic. Roman Catholic dogma in regards to papal infallibility, as with most religious teaching, does not conform to reality.

His religious teachings are garbage, too. Same with his moral judgements.

So far as I am aware (not being a Roman Catholic), that is not what the church teaches. The Pope is infallible only in expressing church dogma, when speaking ex cathedra, and only when he states that he is infallibly revealing doctrine. So far, only the immaculate conception and the assumption have been the subject of infallible pronouncements.

IE, things that can and never will be disproven because of their nature.

on the internet, no one is foreign.


papal infallibility is fun to joke about. does it much matter that it's limited to dogma?

seriously, though.... what's up with always referring to him as "the foreign pope of italy?" i get calling him corrupt and most of the other descriptors you throw at him, but "foreign" is not a negative trait, especially on an internet forum in 2011.

most catholics that i know (my wife's extended family is entirely catholic) don't even know that they're supposed to believe in transubstantiation. i think the implication that we're harping on is that the pope is "infallible," when it comes to "what god wants." that it's only been used in the pronouncements you mention does not prevent foolish lay catholics from believing it applies to everything he says.

Your question is less than informed. Please find and read exactly what papal infallibility entails.

This [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility ] is not real technical, but may be an adequate start.

Papal infallibility is a stronger teaching than Evangelical inerrant original scriptures - the Pope actually exists and certainly has access to what us AngloSaxon [well, part of me is] like to call the Holy Ghost.

But nothing to do with anything I can figure you are talking about.

It aint that complicated.

Catholics believe that the Pope is "infallible" on articles of faith.

If he pronounces something that has to do with faith ( like "from now on Catholics have to eat jujube's on Thursdays") then that would be "infallible".

But if you had an audience with the Pope and then proceeded to grill him on pop music trivia you would find that he is just as "fallible" as anyone else, but that would not in anyway contradict Roman Catholicism because its not an example of the above. God did not magically give the Pope the power to recite the lyrics of Adina's "A Freak Like Me" on command- are atleast thats not what Catholics believe.

So even though the Pope is "infallible" in this theological sense it doesnt necessarily stop him from being "fallible" as the ceo of his temporal organization.
And it does indeed look like a major global scandal may be in the making over this pedofile cover up problem, but thats on another plane from theology.

Or maybe it isnt ...exactly.

Despite his confusion about theology the OP may be on to something- the Vactican may well be at major crossroads right now.


To head off this scandal in the making it could well be that "God" will suddenly.. and conveniently.."reveal" to the Pope that "yes its okay to let priests marry".. just in time for the church to clean house of all of the perves, and for the corporation to hire replacements who wont be scaried away by a job requirement that tends to favor perves and to lock out normal straight men.

"God" may even "reveal"to the Pope that its okay to hire women (married and unmarried) to the fill the job vacancies for priests and enable the corporation to continue functioning.

Well - either they have to keep on sheltering pedofiles- or they are going to have to publicly make a sudden change in theology that would such a big turn on a dime that it could make a mockery out of Catholic theology.

An interesting dilemma!

If you were in the Pope's shoes what would you do?

Keep up the cover up?
Or possibly do irrepairable damage to Catholic theology by cleaning house?
We are talking about a global house cleaning here.

I would go with the latter if I were him.
Stop injuring children first, worry about theology later.
But thats just me talking.

Interesting question, let's clarify the doctrine though. The Pope is not infallable. He can sin and he can make mistakes. There are however certain situations where the Pope's decision is final. It is called an 'ex cathedra' statement. When doctrinal disputes reach fever point the Pope is empowered to make a line ball call, as an umpire and the decision is final. The Pope takes responsibility for the sin, personally, if he is wrong. Hence they don't do it very often.

If you are looking for a good arguement for the need for an umpire, read Alistair McGrath's 'Christianity's Dangerous Idea', though it is a totally Protestant work, it inadvertently makes the case for Rome.

Note,

This is not to say that there are not many things to like in the Protestant view. I like the emphasis on the authority between God and man, it liberates man from the world very effectively, thus denying authority to a power of man. I also like some of the writers, such as McGrath, Peter Hitchens, CS Lewis, Alvin Plantinga and William Lane Craig.

Last edited by 91 on 02 Feb 2011, 1:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Too late. The scandal's already been made and the damage has been done. And trust me, we're cleaning house. Query: does the job requirement favor "perves"? Recalling that we are on an Asperger's forum here, there are plenty of people on the boards who describe themselves as 'asexual'. They'd probably do very well in a celibate life. Are they perverted?

A prominent author did write that "of all sexual orientations celibacy has got to be the most perverted."

An asexual may not be a "perv" but they are just as deviant as a homosexual.
Ive got nothing against folks who are into adult members of their own gender.
Staights, gays, and asexuals, are all okay by me. Pedophiles are the ones who an actual threat to society.

When a job requires that you give up sex the rest of your life, and- you have to be male, you're selecting for alot of wierd troublesome and troubled people.

Im not the only one to suggest that hypthosesis.

But hey- it seemed logical to believe that the Earth was flat once so I could be wrong.

bolded: the part of this sentence that is true. not bolded: the part of this sentence that is bullsh**.

it's interesting to see which one you prefaced with "certainly."