When did the Pope become infallible?

Question

Is the Pope in Greek Orthodox Church also infallible? Since when? Who decided this? Did Jesus ever appoint a Pope? How can a human being be thought of as infallible? If you are a Catholic, do you truly, deeply believe this with all of your heart? Just curious... thx!

Answer 1

Are Popes Infallible?

‘THE dogma on which the triumph of Catholicism over Rationalism depends.’ That is how, in 1870, the Jesuit periodical La Civiltà Cattolica acclaimed the solemn promulgation of the dogma of papal infallibility at the First Vatican Council.

In Catholic theological language, “dogma” refers to doctrines that have an “absolute value and are unquestionable.” The exact definition of papal infallibility, as approved by the council of 1870, states:

“It is a divinely revealed dogma that the Roman pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when acting in the office of shepherd and teacher of all Christians, he defines, by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the universal church, possesses through the divine assistance promised to him in the person of blessed Peter, the infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed his church to be endowed in defining the doctrine concerning faith or morals; and that such definitions of the Roman pontiff are therefore irreformable of themselves, not because of the consent of the church.”

A No-Lose Situation

This formula, which is difficult for many individuals to understand, is also vague, according to a German theologian, the late August Bernhard Hasler. He spoke of the “vagueness” and “undetermination” of the expression ex cathedra, saying that “one can almost never tell which decisions are to be considered infallible.” According to another theologian, Heinrich Fries, the formula is “ambiguous,” while the late Karl Rahner admitted that the matter had given rise to a “complicated controversy.”

Hasler maintained that “the vagueness of the concepts” allows both for an extensive application of the dogma in order to increase the power of the pope and for a more limited interpretation so that when faced with wrong teachings of the past, one can always support the claim that these are no part of the so-called infallible “magisterium.” In other words, it is a “heads I win, tails you lose” situation.

“Infallibility” means, then, that the pope, even though he makes mistakes like all other humans, does not err when defining matters of faith and morals ex cathedra, acting in the office of shepherd of the Roman Catholic Church.

Nevertheless, what do Catholics themselves think about this doctrine?

A. M., a Catholic lawyer from Bergamo, said: “If a person professes Catholicism, then he must believe in its dogmas. That the problem of papal infallibility cannot be explained in a rational way is obvious—it’s a question of faith. One either believes or one doesn’t.”

P. S., a Catholic from Palermo, affirms: “What is important in my opinion is, not so much whether the Bible supports the dogma or not, but whether its function within the church can be verified, and its specific utility today. We live in a confused world, a real Babylon of ideas. People no longer have certainties, and there is this great necessity for an absolutely sure source they can relate to.”

Other Catholics are critical. It would seem that their skepticism is based upon the papacy’s historical precedents. “Even though I am a practicing Catholic, it’s difficult for me to believe in this doctrine [of papal infallibility],” said L. J., a Rome journalist. “The history of the popes shows the exact opposite.”

A. P., a Rome doctor, says: “I don’t believe it at all. He is a man like all the others and makes mistakes. For example, he’s wrong when he gets involved in politics. Only God doesn’t make mistakes.”

This doctrine has divided people. In 1982, in the city of Rome, the home of the Vatican, 57 percent of Catholics considered papal infallibility one of the most questionable of dogmas. In Portugal, only 54.6 percent of Catholics believe in it, and in Spain, only 37 percent.

Could it be that this dogma, instead of contributing to the unity of the Catholic Church, has actually given birth to divisions and disputes? Historical evidence shows it has been at the root of controversies since its beginning, even during the council that promulgated it in the 19th century.

Divisions and Browbeating

It is undeniable that there were some very heated arguments between bishops and cardinals during the Vatican Council of 1870. La Civiltà Cattolica of that year spoke of “fiery agitation,” pointing out that not even the Jesuits anticipated that “such contrasts would have arisen in the face of such a sacred truth.”

German historian Ferdinand Gregorovius wrote that there were “tempestuous sessions” at the council. The one held on March 22, 1870, was particularly unruly. Bishop Josip Juraj Strossmajer, one of the many bishops present at the council who were against the infallibility dogma, was silenced by the howls of the bishops who favored it. The records of the council relate that while Strossmajer was speaking, these bishops “loudly” protested and ‘yelled’: “Kick him out!” and, “Get down! Get down!”

Other historians have shown that the pope and the Roman Curia exerted strong pressures on council members in order to get the dogma approved. Concerning this, Catholic historian Roger Aubert speaks of the “row” that Pius IX had with Cardinal Guidi of Bologna, whose address to the council was not to the pope’s liking. In a fit of anger, Pius IX reportedly said to the cardinal, who had made reference to tradition in his discourse: “I am the tradition!”

The pope wanted the doctrine approved at all costs: “I am so determined to go ahead,” he said, “that if I thought the Council wanted silence, I would dismiss it, and I would make the definition by myself.” La Civiltà Cattolica admitted: “The maneuvers of the council’s majority and also of Pope Pius IX, and the limitations and difficulties imposed on the minority, are no longer to be minimized or justified apologetically.”

One history book sums up the events, saying: “Papal nuncios [ambassadors] intimidate the bishops into favoring a decree of papal infallibility.” However, such “maneuvers” did not succeed in calming the waters of dissent—they only served to agitate them even more. After the council, part of the dissident clergy broke off from the Catholic Church. The “Old Catholics” movement was formed from the schism, and it is still active in Austria, Germany, and Switzerland.

When established??

When did the doctrine of the papacy take root? Professor Alberigo says: “Toward the end of the fourth century, the Roman church’s claim to an apostolic function, that is, of coordination for the western churches, becomes more insistent.” It was “during the episcopate of Leo I [fifth century],” adds Alberigo, that “the concept of Peter’s ‘princedom’ among the apostles, founded on Mt 16:18,” was developed. “One finds in the NT no indications by Jesus concerning the successors of Peter or of the other apostles.“You are Peter [Greek, Pe′tros], and on this rock [Greek, pe′trai] I will build my church.” As far as the Catholic Church is concerned, the close similarity between the two terms shows that Peter is the foundation stone of the true church, or Christian congregation. But since the Bible has much to say about the symbolic stone, it is necessary to examine other verses in order to gain a correct understanding.—Matthew 16:18, Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition.

Important prophecies in the Hebrew Scriptures had already announced the coming of a symbolic foundation stone and the double role it would play. It was to be an instrument of salvation for those who exercised faith: “Here I am laying as a foundation in Zion a stone, a tried stone, the precious corner of a sure foundation. No one exercising faith will get panicky.” (Isaiah 28:16) Paradoxically, it was to be a rock over which the unbelieving Israelites would have stumbled: “The stone that the builders rejected has become the head of the corner.” (Psalm 118:22) “As a stone to strike against and as a rock over which to stumble to both the houses of Israel.”—Isaiah 8:14.

Was it possible for a mere man, especially impulsive Peter, to play out the double role of the symbolic stone? (Matthew 26:33-35, 69-75; Mark 14:34-42) In whom should we exercise faith in order to obtain salvation, in Peter or in someone greater? Over whom did the Israelites stumble, over Peter or over Jesus? The Scriptures clearly indicate that the prophecies concerning the precious stone were fulfilled, not in Peter, but in the Son of God, Jesus Christ. It was Jesus who applied the prophecies of Isaiah and Psalm 118 to himself, as Matthew 21:42-45 shows.

Peter himself, as we read at 1 Peter 2:4-8, considered Jesus, and not himself, to be the foundation stone. On a previous occasion, when speaking to the Jewish religious leaders, he confirmed that “Jesus Christ the Nazarene” was “the stone that was treated by you builders as of no account that has become the head of the corner.”—Acts 4:10, 11.

The apostle Paul was of like mind, as can be seen from scriptures such as Romans 9:31-33, 1 Corinthians 10:4, and Ephesians 2:20, this last verse confirming the fact that the members of the Christian congregation are “built up upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, while Christ Jesus himself is the foundation cornerstone.” He is also ‘the head of the congregation,’ which he guides from the heavens. “I am with you all the days until the conclusion of the system of things,” said Jesus.—Ephesians 1:22; 5:23; Matthew 28:20; Colossians 1:18.

What instrument did Jesus use in directing the work of his faithful followers after his ascension to heaven? Did he nominate one of them as his “vicar” with supreme powers, like the pope? No, he did not establish a monarchical form of government over the congregation. Rather, he committed the care of the flock to a body, or group, of faithful servants. At its beginning, the Christian congregation was guided by the entire body of the 12 apostles, along with elders in the Jerusalem congregation.

It was the 12 apostles, collectively, who decided how to provide for the material necessities of needy ones. (Acts 6:1-6) The body of 12 also decided who should be sent to the Samaritans after they had accepted the good news, and Peter and John were chosen. On this occasion, it would appear that Peter, far from making decisions on his own, was simply one of those “dispatched” by the apostles.—Acts 8:14.

Finally, it was during the assembly held in Jerusalem circa 49 C.E. that “the apostles and the older men” decided on the basis of the Scriptures that it was not necessary to circumcise the Gentiles who had been converted to Christianity. (Acts 15:1-29) From the historical account, it is clear that it was not Peter but James, the half brother of Jesus, who presided at that assembly. In fact, he concluded the proceedings by saying: “My decision is not to trouble those from the nations who are turning to God.” (Acts 15:19) Would James have been able to speak of ‘his decision’ if Peter, who was present, held the primacy among the apostles?

The apostle Paul, speaking of the various ministries that contributed to the upbuilding of the congregation, did not mention the so-called magisterium of the pope but rather the collective service of all the apostles.—1 Corinthians 12:28; Ephesians 4:11, 12.

Because of his zeal and initiative, Peter doubtless played a “considerable” role, as Alberigo writes. Jesus gave him “the keys of the kingdom of the heavens.” (Matthew 16:19) He used these symbolic keys to open up to Jews, Samaritans, and Gentiles the opportunity to enter into the Kingdom of the heavens. (Acts 2:14-40; 8:14-17; 10:24-48) He was also given the responsibility of ‘binding’ and ‘loosing,’ a task he shared with the other apostles. (Matthew 16:19; 18:18, 19) He was to shepherd the Christian congregation, something that all Christian overseers must do.—Acts 20:28; 1 Peter 5:2.

However, because of their Christian qualities, apostles other than Peter were also “outstanding.” Paul spoke of “the ones who seemed to be pillars” of the congregation, referring to “James and Cephas [Peter] and John.” (Galatians 2:2, 9) Jesus’ half brother James played a particularly important part. As mentioned previously, he presided at the Jerusalem assembly, and there are various accounts that confirm his notable role.—Acts 12:17; 21:18-25; Galatians 2:12.

God bestowed great power on Jesus’ faithful disciples, including the ability to perform miracles. But nowhere do we read that he empowered them to make infallible utterances. As faithful as he was, Peter committed errors. He was reproved by Jesus, and on one occasion the apostle Paul corrected him in public.—Matthew 16:21-23; 26:31-34; Galatians 2:11-14.

Only the Scriptures are infallible, being the Word of God. Peter spoke of “the prophetic word” to which to pay attention as to a shining lamp. (2 Peter 1:19-21) If we are to know God’s will, then we must entrust ourselves to his ‘living’ Word. (Hebrews 4:12) Only God’s Word, and not an ambiguous definition by religious leaders, offers the certainties that mankind so badly needs. In our time also, Christ Jesus is using a group of his servants, fallible but faithful, collectively called “the faithful and discreet slave.”—Matthew 24:45-47.

I Know this was a terribly long answer, but I really did want to answer your questions as thoroughly and accurately as I possibly could!! If you have more questions, don't hesitate to ask me more at

[e-mail]

I would love to discuss more Bible topics with you.

Answer 2

This became a dogma of the Roman Catholic Church in 1870. The "church fathers" of the time just declared it to be an article of faith for the RC Church. Jesus never appointed a pope. Even St. Peter was not appointed as head of the apostles by Jesus. Papal infallibility means that the pope can not make a mistake when he makes pronouncements about faith and/or morals. I do not believe this for one second. Happily, I am a Lutheran -- but we have our own problems too.

Answer 3

Infallibility is going with the workplace, no longer the guy. Pope Benedict XVII emeritus, or notwithstanding he's termed now, isn't any longer infallible. a clergyman is elected pope, no longer ordained pope. a clergyman who has been elected could decline and a few have. Popes can and do sin. Popes have ranged from despicable to exemplary. i do no longer comprehend the respond on your pre-decision question. a individual does no longer flow by a non secular exchange while he turns into pope.

Answer 4

There is no authentic pope in the Orthodox Churches. There's only one pope, Benedict XVI, who resides in the Vatican, and he is the leader of the whole church.

Peter, the first pope, his office, and his succesors, were given a divine surety by Jesus Christ as follows:

Mat 16:18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
==============
Mat 16:19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.
==============

You'll notice that Jesus does not qualify his statement in any way ... WHATSOEVER THOU SHALT BIND ...

This infallibility doesn't apply to every statement or every word of the pope ... but to very specific pronouncements related to his office as the chief pastor and bishop, and the primary teacher of the Church.

In fact, the pope has claimed to be infallible in his pronouncements only TWICE throughout the entire 2000 year history of the papacy.

But this principle is not really that unusual.

The writers of the Bible were led by the Holy Spirit to write infallible truths. The true prophets of old were infallible when they announced, "Thus sayeth the Lord." Angels too, are infallible when they deliver the pure message of God.

Even the CORRUPT High Priest who demanded Jesus' death was legitimately infallible when he prophesied, according to the authority his office was given by God, under the old law.

The "Seat of Moses" while inferior to the "Chair of Peter" still carried with it the divine assurance of limited infallibilty.

God's true Church, the Catholic Church, is also infallible when it teaches and acts according to the guidance of the Holy Spirit and the heavenly leadership of Jesus Christ.

The only reason someone would doubt the infallibility of the pope is if they also doubted the divinely appointed authority of his office ... and I know that's where you are coming from.

You can try to rewrite history and deny it all you want.

The papacy is authentic. Its historical. It was instituted in the beginning by Christ himself. It still exists today.

Do Catholics truly believe this? Yes!

Based on the words of Christ in the scriptures, and on the actual historical evidence, everyone should.

It's true.

Answer 5

+ First Pope +

Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." (Matthew 16:17-19)

The Catholic Church believes the Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the "rock" of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock.

Pope Benedict XVI is the senior pastor of 1.1 billion Catholics, the direct successor of Simon Peter.

+ Papal Infallibility +

The Catholic Church teaches that the Pope is infallible at closely defined times.

The Pope is only infallible when he, in union with the body of bishops, solemnly teaches that a doctrine as true.

This comes from the words of Jesus to Peter (the first Pope) and the Apostles (the first bishops), "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven" (Matthew 18:18) and "He who hears you hears me" (Luke 10:16).

At all other times the Pope can be just as sinful as you and me and be in need of forgiveness.

http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt1sect2chpt3art9p4.htm#891
http://www.catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp

Sorry I don't know much about the Greek Orthodox Church.

+ With love in Christ.

Answer 6

of course no human can be infalliable. Ctholics claim Petter was the first Pope but their is no evidance of that. he did not see himself above other followers of Jesus. Jesus came that we could all talk to God directly we do not need priests if we open out hearts to Jesus.

Answer 7

popes never were, and never will be infallible. Only Jesus is perfect.

Answer 8

i do not have the date with me but if you email me i will email it back to you tomorrow..... i'm a religious studies major and i'm actually learning about papal infallibility right now.... the pope at the time decided it

[e-mail]

Answer 9

The catholics do not read the Bible. The Pope tells them not to.

Answer 10

Maybe by their standards, but not by ours. He is a man, and all of mankind fails at certain times. What he did was wrong, and what the Catholics are doing in treating him like something to worship is wrong. He is not God, and needs to be treated like what he is-a human.

Answer 11

since the Roman Empire adopted the christian faith and made it the national religion.

they were pagans before and had their monks and temples and idols and stuff, and Christianity was new to the pagans of Rome so the Government kept the body form of Paganism but wore a christian mask so people would accept the new religion easily.