Calling the Pope "Holy Father" and "Papal Infallability"

“No Salvation Outside of the Church” remains a Catholic Dogma, as Vatican II affirmed. However, it must be understood in the way the Church understands in and has interpreted it in its documents and councils.

catholic.com/magazine/articles/what-no-salvation-outside-the-church-means

In addition, a good quote from Pope Pius IX (1846-1878) where he said
“”"For, it must be held by faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church, no one can be saved; that this is the only ark of salvation; that he who shall not have entered therein will perish in the flood; but, on the other hand, it is necessary to hold for certain that they who labor in ignorance of the true religion, if this ignorance is invincible, will not be held guilty of this in the eyes of God. Now, in truth, who would arrogate so much to himself as to mark the limits of such an ignorance, because of the nature and variety of peoples, regions, innate dispositions, and of so many other things? For, in truth, when released from these corporeal chains ‘we shall see God as He is’ (1 John 3.2), we shall understand perfectly by how close and beautiful a bond divine mercy and justice are united; but as long as we are on earth, weighed down by this mortal mass which blunts the soul, let us hold most firmly that, in accordance with Catholic teaching, there is “one God, one faith, one baptism” (Eph. 4.5); it is unlawful to proceed further in inquiry.
“But, just as the way of charity demands, let us pour forth continual prayers that all nations everywhere may be converted to Christ; and let us be devoted to the common salvation of men in proportion to our strength, ‘for the hand of the Lord is not shortened’ (Isa. 9.1) and the gifts of heavenly grace will not be wanting to those who sincerely wish and ask to be refreshed by this light.”

There is confusion on this thread. The word holy has two meanings.

Holy can mean set apart for sacred use - this is what Elizium23 is talking about. Holy also means a decrease in sin and an increase in virtue - this is what pablope references in 1 Peter.

A Pope is holy because he is a man set apart by God for sacred use, but he may be very unholy in his personal conduct. A beggar who lives in the street can live a very holy life while living in very profane (common) circumstances. We have to be careful that we don’t confuse being set apart by God for sacred use with the process of sanctification - being made holy by God so that we don’t sin and live lives of great virtue.

-Tim-

Are you referring to his post #1 or post #19?:wink:

I’m referring to Both his posts # 1 and 19.

po18guy – I Have been reading the other posts – and as another poster has commented – there is some confusion on this thread / two definitions of holy for one thing.

And the concept that the Holy Roman Catholic church is infallible – cause Romans 3:23 states 'for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."

John 14: 6 Jesus Christ is telling us that “I am the way, the truth and the life, no man comes to the Father but by Me.” So – Jesus Christ is our Truth / Jesus said “I and My Father are One.” All others are capable of error.

So, the fact that we are all sinners, including the men in the Church, the Pope, the ones who make up the Magesterium, are all sinners, Christ’s guarantee that the Holy Spirit would lead the Church in ALL Truth is undone? God’s Word saying that the Church is the “pillar and bulwark of truth” is rendered untrue because we are all sinners? In other words, you equate “infallibility” to “impeccability”, even though God’s Word does not. Why do you do this?

(By the way, there are other words that Paul wrote surrounding the tiny snippet you quoted from Rom 3:23. If you read a few sentences on either side of that mini-quote, it might give a larger clue who Paul was writing to, and what message he was trying to convey…what point he was making. See also Psalm 14, which Paul had just finished quoting and drawing his audience’s attention to, and pay attention to the difference between the “evildoers” and the “company of the righteous”.)

All human beings are capable of error. But the Holy Spirit can protect certain people from error. Just as when The Holy Spirit protected The Apostle Paul from error when he wrote his epistles, and protected James from error when he wrote the Book of James, and Matthew from error when the wrote The Gospel of Matthew.

As is frequently seen among bible Christians, it is clear that you are taking the scriptures out of context. And, as we all should know, text without a context is a pretext.

The scripture says that the ignorant and unstable twist and distort PAUL as they do with the other scriptures.

You claim that the Catholic Church is fallible, but insist that your private opinion is infallible.

Do you see a problem?

crochet lady #24
And the concept that the Holy Roman Catholic church is infallible – cause Romans 3:23 states 'for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."

Yes, all of mankind sins, except the Blessed Virgin Mary.

John 14: 6 Jesus Christ is telling us that “I am the way, the truth and the life, no man comes to the Father but by Me.” So – Jesus Christ is our Truth / Jesus said “I and My Father are One.” All others are capable of error.

Why try to deny the truth that Jesus, the Son of God, clearly assigned His authority to His Supreme Vicar and His Church?

It is clear from the Bible that Jesus established His Church on His Supreme Vicar, St Peter.
All four promises to Peter alone:
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
“I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." ( Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19) [Later to the Twelve].

Sole authority:
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).

Jesus warned dissenters: “if he refuses to hear even the Church let him be like the heathen and a publican.” (Mt 18:17).

St. Paul says also, “through the Church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places (Eph 3:10).” The Church teaches even the angels! This is with the authority of Christ!

Quite obviously Christ cannot teach error and has protected His Church, through His chosen Supreme Vicar, from teaching error on faith and morals – binding and loosing.

[quote=Abu]Quite obviously Christ cannot teach error and has protected His Church, through His chosen Supreme Vicar, from teaching error on faith and morals – binding and loosing.
[/quote]

I would only change your statement thus:

Quite obviously Christ cannot teach error and has protected His Church, INCLUDING His chosen Supreme Vicar, from teaching error on faith and morals – binding and loosing. Obviously Church infallibility does not come THROUGH the Pope. Just the reverse. :wink: Otherwise good post! :smiley:

Let’s look at this from a different angle.

When Jesus, after His resurrection, said to Peter John 21:15-17
[LIST]
*]who was Jesus leaving out of this command to Peter? Anybody? Is there a group of people on the planet that Peter is to ignore, or that Our Lord doesn’t care about?
[/LIST]By definition, if in Our Lord’s mind, there are ANY that are specifically left out of this command, then by definition, they don’t belong to Jesus…right? Who are they?

The highlighted, maybe due to phrasing, is not exactly a correct statement either…

Papal infallibility defined

[LIST=1]
*]
[LIST]
*]we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that
[LIST]
*]when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,
[LIST]
*]that is, when, [LIST=1]
*]**in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, **
*]**in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, **
*]**he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church, **
[/LIST]
[/LIST]
*]he possesses,
[LIST]
*]by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,
[/LIST]
*]that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
*]Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.
[/LIST]
[/LIST]
[/LIST][/FONT]http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum20.htm

AmbroseSJ #29
Obviously Church infallibility does not come THROUGH the Pope. Just the reverse.

On this Fr O’Connor elucidates on Bishop Gasser’s reflection: “The Church, he says has assented to the claims of the Roman See and the Church cannot err. Therefore the claims of the Roman See to be infallible are part of he normative tradition of the Church. For Gasser, however, the assent is not the reason for the rightness of Rome’s, but a witness to their truth.” The Gift of Infallibility, 1986, p 29, footnote #8].

The reality:
Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus, Chapter 4:
“Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.”

Vatican II, *Lumen Gentium *25:
“And therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of other, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment.”

AmbroseSJ’s mistaken “active infallibility of the Faithful” has already elsewhere been shown to be false.

Infallibility is not the same as impeccability.

Infallible does not mean ‘sinless’. It means simply that the Church’s teachings (which she doesn’t make up, but which she simply hands on as God gives her, including your own Bible) on matters of faith and morals**** are guaranteed to be without error by the Holy Spirit.

That means that the Church’s teachings that God is a Trinity is infallible. The Church will never teach that God is a Dynamic Duo or a Fab Four.

It means that the Church’s teachings that Christ died, rose from the dead, and ascended into heaven are infallible. The Church will never teach that Christ did not actually fully die, or that he didn’t ascend into heaven.

The Church will always teach, as God has taught, that murder is wrong, stealing is wrong, marriage is between one man and one woman, divorce is wrong, and the two Greatest Commandments are to love God with your whole heart, mind, soul, and strength, and your neighbor as yourself. . .among other things.

Note indeed how the Church’s teachings are rooted in the Bible --either right there in the Old Testament (the Ten Commandments), in the New Testament (John 6 on the Real Presence and the sacrament of the Eucharist), or revealed through the Holy Spirit (of whom Scripture tells us that Christ said He would ‘lead us to all truth’–which by definition meant that there was truth which had NOT been fully revealed, which does not contradict other truth, and which we will have assurance of by the Spirit. Such things include the concept of the Trinity itself which is never fully explained in Scripture directly, or the concepts of a ‘state’ (not necessarily a ‘place’) of purgation (saved ‘as through fire’ as St Paul says) that all who are not ‘perfect’ at the time of death pass through. . among other things.

OK - I have to bring this in again - it just is to clear to me.

** I just copied this from the other thread:

" We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff. (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.) "

I don’t think current church teaching supports this, based on talking to our local priest. So - does this mean Pope Boniface VIII was wrong? **

I read the other reply that said if someone outside the church is ignorant of certain things of the church it does not apply. But I watched a Fr. Barron clip where he stated the second largest religion in the US would be ex-Catholics. If they end up in a Baptist or Lutheran church they are not ignorant of the difference - so they can not be saved??? I don’t think current church teaching supports this.

This is where Catholicism starts to loose credibility to me and I hesitate. When the answer is clear and you deny it, you loose credibility, and then people start to question you in other areas.

At Vatican I when this started some Catholics rejected Papal infallibility and split if I am correct.

[quote=Abu]The reality:
Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus, Chapter 4:
“Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.”

Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 25:
“And therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of other, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment.”
[/quote]

I’m sorry you do not understand Papal infallibility Abu. I was referring to the origin of Papal infallibility which is Church infallibility. Church infallibility has its origin with the Holy Spirit.

I was NOT referring to “consent of the Church” nor did I use those words. I am sorry to say that you still see a boogeyman (i.e. dissent) in literally everyone’s post about infallibility or the pope. :rolleyes:

I even complimented you on your post in general. In return you chose to bring up another thread where you supposed I was wrong. :shrug:

It’s not enough to fire off quotes from posters and other sources. You MUST understand the meaning of those quotes too! :wink:

We can be ignorant of things we are unaware of even when we think we are not…

If a Christian decides Christianity is no longer the true religion and becomes Muslim, would you say that now in fact Christianity must be wrong or just that this person is/was missing something [ignorant]?

Peace!!!

With Boniface’s Unam Sanctam, I would say the easiest way to read it is as a declaration of extra ecclesia nulla salus. This means that submission to the pope is necessary for salvation in a normative sense. Christ said that baptism was necessary for salvation, but Catholics do not believe that it is absolutely impossible for a person who has not received the sacrament of baptism to be saved. The Catholic Encyclopedia puts it like this,

This definition, the meaning and importance of which are clearly evident from the connection with the first part on the necessity of the one Church for salvation, and on the pope as the one supreme head of the Church, expresses the necessity for everyone who wishes to attain salvation of belonging to the Church, and therefore of being subject to the authority of the pope in all religious matters. This has been the constant teaching of the Church, and it was declared in the same sense by the Fifth Ecumenical Council of the Lateran, in 1516: “De necessitate esse salutis omnes Christi fideles Romano Pontifici subesse” (That it is of the necessity of salvation for all Christ’s faithful to be subject to the Roman pontiff).

Is it true that all who die outside visible communion with the Church will not be saved? Possibly, but the Church does not teach this is known with certainty.

The reason as to why we say Holy Father is this. The Holy Spirit picks the successor of Peter when the previous successor is not eligible. Now the reason we say Holy is because the Holy Spirit has picked him to lead the Church, this goes on to the Father- part, since he leads the Church like a Father in the family we call him Holy Father.

Papal Infallibility is different. For example Pope Francis can say," Argentina is the best country." Does that mean that Argentina is the New Israel? Of course not. Infallibility is not when the Pope speaks but when the Holy Spirit speaks through the pope.

"To join the Church, one must say, “I believe and profess all the Catholic Church teaches to be revealed by God.”

Those of us ‘born Catholic’ get to pick and choose, agree and disagree with Catholic doctrine all of our lives. It is only those ‘switching’ that must make such formal statements of unquestioning belief.

I’ve found the AA maxim, “Take what you need and leave the rest” to be most helpful. That doesn’t mean that what I ‘leave behind’ will never be useful - just that I could only grasp some principles after further reflection and experience. Rather than dismiss troublesome principles outright, I learned to ‘suspend disbelief’ and await further input.

My job is to remain willing and teachable. The Holy Spirit can then ‘do works in me’ to bring Clarity where I don’t understand.

To me, the Power of the Catholic Church lies in Confession - the place where ALL of us may find the Holy Spirit, for ourselves - which is the Point of Christ’s misssion and necessary for Salvation. I wonder what effect it will have when more governments enact laws that require the breaking of the Seal of Confession (like in Ireland). But that’s a different topic.

Mark 9:24 (KJV) - And straightway the father of the child cried out, and said with tears, Lord, I believe ((as far as I am able)); help Thou mine unbelief ((that which I can’t yet apprehend)).

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.