How to justify Papal Contradictions?


#1

I mean, we all know that Popes have made some statements that don’t exactly correlate with those of their fellow Pontiffs. How do we, as Catholics, explain these contradictions while at the same time upholding Papal Infallibility?


#2

No, we do not know any such thing.

There are no contradictions.

The Pope and Magesterium do not err when teaching on faith and morals through ecumenical councils, through the ordinary Magesterium, and the Pope ex cathedra.

Perhaps you are thinking of personal opinions, such as whether or not they like brussel sprouts, their opinion on politics, the weather, etc. Those statements are not about faith or morals and divergent opinions in no way contradict Papal Infallibility.


#3

If you would be so kind, peruse through this and give me your opinions.

Bishop Joseph Georg Strossmayer’s speech against Papal Infallibility:

john3-16.connectfree.co.uk/pope.html


#4

They made different statements because they had different personal opinions, which of course are not protected by infalliblity.


#5

Even as a Protestant I know that speech is a fraud.


#6

This document is a well-known forgery.

What does this forged document have to do with your original question?


#7

I just wanted to see what people thought of it. I honestly did not know it was a forgery. But, really, at one time Popes had people burned at the stake, and now they’re campaigning against Capital punishment. If that doesn’t fall under the category of “Faith and Morals”, I really don’t know what does…


#8

You should pick the websites you visit with more care. That one lacks intergrity.

It is full of errors. Steven Ray’s book Upon This Rock refutes all the bunk contained in that document/website and others regarding the Papacy. I highly recommend the book.

And, there is no inconsistency here. The Church does not teach that the death penalty is intrinsically evil. No Pope has denied this or taught that it is.

In a pastoral capacity, the Pope can urge people to find remedies other than the death penalty. In days past, the death penalty was often necessary. It sometimes still is, but rarely.

What the Church does teach is that the death penalty should not be employed for revenge or punishment but for the defense of society.


#9

Something I just ran into while quickly searching on this topic…

angelfire.com/ms/seanie/strossmayer.html

…which contains the following…

Update 8 April 2007. I have been kindly informed by George Medina that Escudero, whom Fr. Pedro Stollenwerk declared to be the author of the speech, was not responsible for the forgery. Escudeor was in fact a noted Mexican politician, not a priest. Either way the fact remains that Strossmayer himself denies having made the speech. Fr. Stollenwerk appears to have been in error as to the identity of the forger.

The questions I am left with are as follows…

  1. Can we verify the identity of Escudero? If not, can we find and demonstrate the identity of the real [supposed] forger?

  2. Beyond that, can we find any official documentation which proves Strossmayer did not make this speech? Did he write an official condemnation of the speech (which I would think he certainly would have if he didn’t write it)? I can find no official retraction. I can find no real evidence (at least online) as to the identity of the forger. I am also unable to find a complete list of all Vatican I documents (speeches, etc).

  3. What, of the claims he made in his [supposed] speech are true, and which are false? Even if the document itself were a forgery, the claims within could be true, and thus the point still carries for the purposes of this thread.

For now, I would recommend that we address the veracity of the arguments made in the speech regardless of their author. If anyone else is interested in discussing the veracity of the document itself (and whether or not it’s a forgery), I’d recommend they start a separate thread for that, as to not take away from that one.

So, how about it – which claims in the speech are false, and how can you demonstrate it?


#10

It is a forgery. It is a fake. And, no, we will not “address” it as if it were true.

Agree. Start your own thread.

The entire thing is false as are all its claims. Please go start another thread if you want to discuss this.


#11

There are no definitive judgments on issues of faith or morals binding on the whole Church that contradict.

Certain things are not immutable: canon law, pastoral policy, approbation of religious orders, etc. so there can be contradictions there.

If there is a dispute over some point of divine revelation, there has to be an infallible judge to settle it definitively so all can put their faith in the decision. If that judge were not infallible, the true meaning of Scripture and Tradition could never be known for certain.


#12

Things that appear in contradiction are explained as the Church gaining in knowledge and understanding, or one of the pronouncements is declared not to be under its teaching authority. The Church cannot error in teaching for rather obvious reasons. The US supreme court seldom changes its mind about anything either, for a bit different reasons obviously, but practically speaking you cannot change a lot lest people lose faith in your ability to correctly discern the truth. It leaves a lot of folks scratchnig their heads over seeming differences. I guess its one reason that folks should be really careful of citing writings as dogma. Only the Magisterium it seems can sift through and figure out what is legitimate and not.


#13

What does the legitimacy of when or where the argument came up have to do with the veracity of the argument itself?

The entire thing is false as are all its claims. Please go start another thread if you want to discuss this.

Given that this is a thread on papal contradictions, it would seem this is the perfect place to discuss the document’s contents (as opposed to the document itself, if you can understand the distinction).

Would you care to actually demonstrate that any of the claims are false with some evidence? Thus far we have someone who claims to have done research on the topic, with specific persons, years, and decrees which seemingly contradict. Whether it was Strossmayer or a forger doesn’t really matter, except in as much as it lends credibility to the validity of the research in question.

It would seem that the ball is in your court. Pick a claim, and provide something that demonstrates it to be false.


#14

When a document is proven to be a forgery, then that will naturally lead others to question the entire content of that document. Why would any thinking person give a known forged document any weight of consideration? If one part is proven untrue, that naturally it is assumed that the rest is as well untrue.


#15

So, IOW, you’re so desperate to malign the Church that “fake but accurate” is an acceptable standard? Here’s a thought: You take a claim from the forgery and demostrate its truth.

– Mark L. Chance.


#16

For those of us without the time or patience to read a quite long fake document, could the OP please post the specific items in it considered to prove his point that there are papal contradictions issued as matters of dogma?

If we want to have an actual discussion on the issue, the OP needs to use specific examples with evidence, rather than issue a blind claim that popes contradict.

To whoever has the signature about whether you would buy peanuts if the pope said they would save you. If you believe the pope would disregard the sanctity of the office established by Peter, and his role designated by the Holy Spirit, you are grossly misinformed and malignant.


#17

No Pope has taught, and none will ever teach, error in faith and morals. Note the word “teach.” Is is rather important.

In particular it does not mean that no Pope has been, or ever will be, wrong in matters of administration, discipline, governance, and a myriad of other things. And history records that Popes have been public and notorious sinners. But here’s the thing. No Pope who committed a sin tried to cover up the sin by declaring the sinful action to be no longer sinful. Now THAT would have been a contradiction.

Calling things “contradictions” can be somewhat inapopropriate at times. For example, I began receiving the Eucharist when the Eucharistic fast was from the previous midnight for morning masses. When that was changed to one hour, it was just that: a change, not a contradiction.

And as for recourse to notoriously forged documents, in the immortal words of Charlie Brown, Oh Good Grief!

Blessings,

Gerry


#18

Well, no, it isn’t. Because the document has no papal “contradictions” in it. The document has as its subject an entirely different subject-- refutation of the Papacy as a whole. And, it has a number of different topics contained in the document.

Go start threads on EACH topic, as required by forum rules… such as “was peter in rome”, “was peter the head of the apostles”, etc.

Been there, done that. So has Steven Ray. I suggest you read his book.

Nope, it’s squarely in your court. Forum rules dictate separate threads for separate topics.


#19

You’re good at finding stuff online. You do it.

  1. Beyond that, can we find any official documentation which proves Strossmayer did not make this speech? Did he write an official condemnation of the speech (which I would think he certainly would have if he didn’t write it)? I can find no official retraction. I can find no real evidence (at least online) as to the identity of the forger. I am also unable to find a complete list of all Vatican I documents (speeches, etc).

You enjoy putting the Church on trial, so why don’t you try to prove that this speech was made? Also try proving that we should give it any credence.

  1. What, of the claims he made in his [supposed] speech are true, and which are false? Even if the document itself were a forgery, the claims within could be true, and thus the point still carries for the purposes of this thread.

Again. Trial. You prove it.

So, how about it – which claims in the speech are false, and how can you demonstrate it?

See above.


#20

While I don’t agree with your conclusion, let’s assume it true for a moment. If that’s the case, should it not be easier to disprove such a statement?

Always using rhetoric, you guys are. This has nothing to do with desperation, but I certainly am not surprised by your unwillingness to look at the document in question. That seems to be a common thing around here – always just shift the burden of proof or switch to another topic altogether. Don’t actually counter the claims made.


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.