Can someone here explain to me the dogma of Papal Infallibility?

Papal Infallibility claims that when the Pope gives an official dogmatic teaching he cannot err.

In 653 AD Pope Honorius I issued a letter where he explicitly taught the heresy of Monothelitism.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Honorius_I

If we accept that Pope Honorius was a pope who taught heresy than Papal Infallibility is not true by contradiction.

If we assume the Pope Honorius was not a true Pope because he taught heresy, then Papal Infallibility becomes a meaningless tautology, "the Pope must always be right because if he is not right, he is not Pope".

How do you explain this, Catholics?

Other urls found in this thread:

deism.com/theageofreason.htm
youtube.com/playlist?list=PLF170B126002E7CB0
youtu.be/zM6Ax8ywMds
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

No idea mate but I just realised that PayPal is basically Papal.

Not a catholic, but let me try anyway:

Infallibility was only made dogmatic in 1870 and only applies to teachings "ex cathedra" + some more conditions whose details I'm not sure of. Today's conditions restrict the amount of infallible teachings to 2, older versions go by up to 20 infallible teachings, but as far as I know Honorius' teaching are not part of them. The dogma of infallibility precedes it's definite formulation in 1870, but IIRC not as far as 653. If infallibility applies retroactive, which is open to scholarly debate, and you can prove Honorius intended it to be an infallible teaching, then I'd still disagree with the point that
>Papal Infallibility becomes a meaningless tautology, "the Pope must always be right because if he is not right, he is not Pope"
While logically speaking you're right, reality knows more shades of truth than "sentence A is wrong" and "sentence A is right", which is what logic does. I'd say Papal Infallibility can still make sense as a concept if you accept that the pope very rarely strays so far from dogma that he loses his religious authority, making him a solid pillar of doctrine in 99% of the cases, and the remaining 1% is prevented from corrupting the church by intervention of the congregation of bishops

...

I read your OP as Paypal infallibility, and wondered what was infallable about Paypal

>This was because Honorius was not considered by the supporters of infallibility to be speaking ex cathedra in the letters in question and he was alleged to have never been condemned as a Monothelite, nor, asserted the proponents of infallibility, was he condemned for teaching heresy, but rather for gross negligence and a lax leadership at a time when his letters and guidance were in a position to quash the heresy at its roots.
from the page you linked

>While logically speaking you're right
Catholics casuistry everyone

he said he wasn't catholic retard.

Honorius heresy was written in private letters, not in public encyclical, nor did he proclaim them ex cathedra. His private opinions were.not made binding on Catholics.

Going off logic alone there must be one man who understands the Bible better than anyone else on the world. This is supposed to be the pope.

Like how vatican 2 isn't dogmatic, and thankfully everything that spills from pope Frank's piehole isnt wither.

Either not wither

vatican 2 is an invalid church council as the popes who presided over it were manifest heretics and invalidly elected. google the conclave of 1958 and sedevacantism.

vatican is an invalid church. google the protestant reformation of 1517 and not-being-a-popist-faggot-ism.

Except clearly he doesn't. In the words of the first """Pope""" St. Peter, the rock/stone (KEPHA in the original Aramaic, the language that Jesus spoke) on which Jesus will build his Church is Jesus Christ himself:
>Come to him, to that living stone, rejected by men but in God’s sight chosen and precious; and like living stones be yourselves built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.
>1 Peter 2:4-5

And in the words of St. Paul, the other guy who founded the Church in Rome with St. Peter:
>And all ate the same supernatural food and all drank the same supernatural drink. For they drank from the supernatural Rock which followed them, and the Rock was Christ.
>1 Corinthians 10:3-4

So the Bible clearly teaches that St. Peter, the first """Pope""", and St. Paul, who wrote many of the letters in the New Testament, interpreted Matthew 16:18 to mean that Jesus Christ is the Rock, whereas the Pope interprets it to mean that the Pope is the rock.

I'm not denying logic, I'm saying the principle of bivalence which logic uses is not always "fitting" to describe reality. If I define Canadian as being 100% ethically canadian (whatever that means) and being an arab analoguously, then if you're a halfbreed then logically you are neither canadian nor arab, whil in usual speech you would say you're both canadian and arab. Of course you can fix this by continuously designing logical subcases like "I'm half Canadian", which would logically be true and fit our everyday's speech, but its a pain in the ass, especially since the originally topic is much more complex.

Honorius didn't "teach heresy"; that's a lie used by the neo-trads to justify calling Francis the pope while ignoring his teachings. Honorius said in a private letter that he didn't think a particular heresy was serious enough to condemn. To disqualify a man from the papacy, "teaching heresy" would mean preaching a heresy to the universal Church. You know, as Francis does nearly every day, and as all the post-Vatican II popes have done.

The Pope is only infallible when he speaks ex-cathedra on matters of doctrine. This has only happened a few times in the last 2,000 years.

...

It doesn't make any sense at all.
Peter wasn't infallible and had to be corrected many times.

This. How can the Pope inherit from Peter infallible teaching authority that Peter never had?

That sounds very convenient for you.

>Papal Infallibility

>Infallibility was only made dogmatic in 1870 and only applies to teachings "ex cathedra" + some more conditions whose details I'm not sure of.

That only defined a particular type of papal infallibility, but infallibility goes back to the beginning. Catholics didn't just start believing they had to obey the pope in 1870, after all. The pope is infallible in matters of faith and morals, but if he specifically makes it ex cathedra, then Catholics must accept it as a matter of faith rather than a matter of obedience. The Universal Magisterium (the preponderance of the bishops with the pope) is considered infallible the same way, which is why Councils and canonizations are considered infallible, for instance.

Using a restrictive, very rare definition of infallibility is one of the dodges that neo-trads use to justify calling a man the pope while ignoring and disrespecting him. Catholics don't get that option. If he's the pope, we follow his teachings, not blindly, but with faith. If he's not the pope, we must reject him. One or the other.

It means that if the pope says it's ok to be gay and it's ok to fornicate every catholic church will eat it up like the good cucks they are. This is why there is a good chance that the Antichrist will be a pope.

Both Catholicism and Protestantism are misguided. Look into the Deist Revolution beginning in England from the 17th century onward, and which was carried forward by such luminaries as Franklin, Jefferson, Voltaire, and Goethe. Read The Age of Reason by Thomas Paine. Reason alone is sufficient to prove the existence of God.

"I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life.

I believe in the equality of man; and I believe that religious duties consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and endeavoring to make our fellow-creatures happy.

But, lest it should be supposed that I believe in many other things in addition to these, I shall, in the progress of this work, declare the things I do not believe, and my reasons for not believing them.

I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church.

All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit."

deism.com/theageofreason.htm

youtube.com/playlist?list=PLF170B126002E7CB0
they're fucking Satanists and Catholics are either ignorant deceived people or they're conscious evil.

>My own mind is my own church.
>Wanting to be your own God
Now where have I heard that before...

>I believe in the equality of man
Already cucked from the get-go.

Im a catholic and i have to say that this pope is a fucking idiot. Here, i said it!

Thread theme
>youtu.be/zM6Ax8ywMds

so which one of the millions of protestant denominations should i follow? and why would god wait until over 1500 years after christ's death and resurrection to finally reveal the true christian religion?

>so which one of the millions of protestant denominations should i follow?
Lutheranism.

>and why would god wait until over 1500 years after christ's death and resurrection to finally reveal the true christian religion?
Why would he wait a gazillion years after the creation of the universe to send his son? Don't question God.

Tough to say, the Bible itself says that few will find the right path at Matthew chapter 7.
If you don't think that describes the group you are in, you might want to rethink what you are doing.

Deism is just Atheism with superiority complex.
If you make yourself your own god you have no foundation for morality. You are like a house build on sand. A tree without roots. Your morality will slowly degenerate without an objective standard like a frog in boiling water.
If you used actual reasoning instead of trying to excuse your degenerate lifestyle you'd know Christianity is the Truth.

>Why would he wait a gazillion years after the creation of the universe to send his son? Don't question God.
So are you calling Luther a prophet then? Christ said he founded the Church on St. Peter, not that he'd eventually found it 1500 years later on some random monk.
i'm a sedevacantist so yeah i'm among a few.

False dichotomy.

what dichotomy? i didnt make any dichotomy there you retard.

You are saying that you must choose between Catholicism or Protestantism.

no, he was the one telling me to convert to protestantism you fucking retard.

Why are you calling me a retard? You need to calm down.

The pope's infallible because the pope says so
The pope says so because he's infallible

It's circular logic designed to guarantee the ultimate authority of the pope to anyone without a fucking brain

>Lutheranism
How can you even call yourself Christian? You support literal faggotry. At least become non-denominational or something. Lutheranism takes the worst from both Catholicism and Protestantism (heretical Mary worship from Catholics and endorsement/celebration of sins like gay marriage, sodomy and fornication from Protestants).

>Papal Infallibility claims that when the Pope gives an official dogmatic teaching he cannot err.
Yes, but only for dogmas in religion. Also, in practise the papal infalibility was used only one time.

>My own mind is my own church.
In this moment I am euphoric.

because you're being one. learn how to read before running your mouth

>So are you calling Luther a prophet then? Christ said he founded the Church on St. Peter, not that he'd eventually found it 1500 years later on some random monk.
I'm sorry, is Peter sitting on that chair in Rome right now? No? Christ never said his church would be dependent upon an earthly institution run by literal devil worshipers thousands of years after his death. When you realize the state this church has been for centuries you may see why God allowed Luther to reform it.

You clearly don't know shit about Lutheranism.

Deism is just a code word for Luciferianism:
>". . . Thomas did not believe the resurrection [John 20:25], and, as they say, would not believe without having ocular and manual demonstration himself. So neither will I, and the reason is equally as good for me, and for every other person, as for Thomas." [Thomas Payne, The Age of Reason]

"The story of the redemption will not stand examination. That man should redeem himself from the sin of eating an apple by committing a murder on Jesus Christ, is the strangest system of religion ever set up." [Thomas Payne, The Age of Reason]

>"I believe in one God, Creator of the Universe. That He governs it by his Providence. That he ought to be worshipped. That the most acceptable Service we can render to him, is doing Good to his other Children…. I think the System of Morals [devised by Jesus] and his Religion as he left them to us, the best the World ever saw, or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupting Changes, and I have with most of the present Dissenters in England, some Doubts as to his Divinity." [Benjamin Franklin, letter to Ezra Stiles]

>"In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills." [Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, 1804]
>Jefferson then proceeds to publish his own bible deleting the Immaculate Conception and Resurrection...

So I guess you never studied how Luther and his daughter mysteriously died?

>Yes, goy, the Reformation was also a Jewish conspiracy. Come back to the true church, kiss nigger feet and worship the devil with us

The woman and the nigger look disgusted by what they're seeing.

>mfw the Byzantines and Russians were right from the beginning

Fuck, filename gave my LARP away
>sources on (((John "Calvin" Chaurvin's))) Jewishness:
>Phillip II, by William Thomas Walsh, p. 248: 'The origin of Calvin'; Lucin Wolf, in Transactions, Jewish Historical Society of England, Vol. XI, p. 8; Goris, Les Colonies Marchandes Meridionales à Anvers; Lea, History of the Inquisition of Spain, III, 413

Lutherans originate from my country and are our second largest denomination after Catholicucks. I can tell you from first hand experience that they are the most cucked church I have ever seen (support gay marriage, sodomy, "God accepts everyone just the way they are :^) " etc.
The only ones who could come even close to such cuckery are Anglicans.

>pic related, Lutherans at their best

I smell Ouzo.

Pepsi Infallibility states that corporations are moral arbitors assigned to their positions by the opinion gods in new media. They do not make mistakes, the science is thoroughly sourced

>just knowing now that the Roman Catholic Church is anything but Christian

Babby's first redpill.

The study of law and the study of theocracy are analogous, closer than the study of any other area, for example science.

Dogma is man made voodoo, either legal or theocratic dogma; almost always legal law is derived from theocratic law.

It's all a LARP but it helps society avoid looking like prehistoric society; whether that is beneficial or not depends on which aspect of society you investigate, and how you interpret improvement/decay of culture.

Reading too much into dogma, trying to find truth in man made fantasy it is what autistic priests and nuns and legal scholars do.

Realism is the cure; accepting that things are as they are and there's not always a logical reason, nor does there need to be.

>Orthodox larper quoting Jewish revisionism
lmao

>I can tell you from first hand experience that they are the most cucked church I have ever seen
That's anyone's first hand experience with modern Germans regardless of their denomination.

Yes it is very convenient, and has eliminated many problems that the Protestants and Orthodox have.

I know enough that he wanted to sack the Gospel of John

Turns out the Church is actually Satanic.

We all knew this though,

It's a load of crap. The C*tholic cult is just another satanic perversion of Christianity.

That was Revelation, not the Gospel of John.

>modern Germany
>most cucked country in history
>also most Lutheran country on the planet
Pure coincidence, I presume?

>>If we accept that Pope Honorius was a pope who taught heresy than Papal Infallibility is not true by contradiction.

Christians accept many contradictions though. Just the idea of trinity also causes logical contradictions.

But Christianity is not Islam who are bound by being logically coherent. Christians accept that there are some contradictions which make Christianity uniquely accessible ONLY to those with faith. If something is contradictory it should just be accepted as one of God's mysteries.

You became cucked when you abandoned your religion and not because of it, my friend.

The same goes for the Scandinavian countries. Up until some decades ago you were among the best countries in the world, and you were mostly Lutheran.

It makes sense when you realize that deep down Catholics want nothing more than to suck tiny preist cock.

And I'm not a shitposter

The Dogma of Infallibility is nothing but the statement. That The Pope cannot err is the thing signified by the Dogma, defined within it, and delineated by it. It's not a license to say what he likes, just the opposite. If he tries to say something, invoking (either explicitly or implicitly) the charism of infallibilty, then the Church has to test that against the Tradition of the Church, i.e. what the Church's own internal history and discourse has always believed.

It works, basically, like this:
My girlfriend is never late, because the moment she is late she is no longer my girlfriend.
The pope cannot define doctrine erroneously, because the moment he does he's no longer Pope. I'm simplifying, but not in terms of principle, only in terms of what actually happens: because the evaluation of his words and consequent decision to begin canonical process of rebuking/deposing a pope is not something done quickly. Dumping a tardy GF otoh needn't take much thought.

Simple.

Catholic dogma is what the Pope says it is.

well, considering that if you would dare to say that the pope was wrong you would end up with your tongue nailed to a door, i think it was a precise raffiguration of the reality,

>Christians accept many contradictions though.
Nonesense. Contradictions are themselves nonesensical. There is no contradiction in the trinity, it is wholly logically coherent. What it is not is easily grasped by the intellect as a complete concept, not because it is contradictory but because it causes the one reflecting on it to confront paradox. There is nothing wrong with paradox, they occur as part of life all the time and we live with them without losing any ability to make sense of the world.

In short: the pope has the ultimate power into interpretating the CATHOLIC DOCTRINE while speaking about doctrine matters.
Everything else doesn't fall in the case, he's still a sinner and a fallible person.

>paradox
A paradox is defined as a statement that, despite apparently sound reasoning from true premises, leads to a self-contradictory or a logically unacceptable conclusion.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox

We just have to accept certain mysteries, it is what faith is for.

the vatican 2 sect is not the catholic church. look up the conclave of 1958 and sedevacantism

So Francis is no longer the Pope?

And the Epistle of St James

francis was never the pope. he was never properly ordained as a priest(he was ordained under the invalid post vatican 2 rites), he's a manifest heretic(a pope who becomes a heretic is no longer pope), and his election was wholly invalid.

look up the conclave of 1958. the rightfully elected pope that conclave was forced to step down and "pope" john xxiii was installed. it was john xxiii who started vatican 2, a deeply cucked, heretical and treacherous council that destroyed the church. the council also had a lot of (((rabbis))) and (((hebrew leaders))) attending. why? because it was their ilk who installed john xxiii to take over the church. the takeover of the church was the great apostasy. a billion catholics were misled and brought into a heretical religion. and it was after vatican 2 that all the child molestation and other abuses began to happen, because the catholic church went from being a holy institution into a deeply corrupt and evil one.

prior to vatican 2, the church was always very anti-semitic and anti-muslim. afterwards it was pro both those things and began to encourage "dialogue". that is proof of the jewish takeover if nothing else.

obv. a heresy

Pfft, we recognized the Seat of the Bishop of Rome as vacant way before it was cool

How hard would it be to reverse Vatican II, assuming the right people in the right places had the will to do so? The impression I've gotten from most Catholic-related threads is that it's the source of most of your issues.

It's stuff like this that makes it very hard for me to attend Catholic Mass again. I just don't get none of dis shit. I had a simple faith as a child that was good, but a lot of the doctrine I learned about as I got older made no sense to me so I stopped attending Mass.

Deism, freemasonry, etc. is the beginning of pic related. Arguably some sects of Protestantism are also fedora religions.

>so which one of the millions of protestant denominations should i follow?
Don't follow a denomination, just be Protestant.


>and why would god wait until over 1500 years after christ's death and resurrection to finally reveal the true christian religion?
There are multiple Christian religions? I knew there were different sects, churches, and denominations, but I didn't know there was a different Christ who founded a different Christianity than the one founded by Jesus Christ.

Reformation means a revised understanding of the faith, not a brand new religion. You may disagree with that new understanding, but Prots are still Christians because they literally worship Jesus Christ and confess that He is the only begotten son of God and the one savior of mankind who died on the cross for their salvation.

Protestant is meaningless by itself. there is no unified set of "protestant beliefs" by which a group of people could identify themselves as the "protestant church". christ spoke in the bible about his CHURCH and told us to spread his word and grow his church. if you don't have a church you can convert me to, you aren't an evangelist. you aren't trying to convince me of the truth, to try and save my soul by teaching me the true faith, you're just saying "eh, don't be catholic and you're good."

if you know the true faith then you must spread it, it is your duty as a christian.