At work today the TV showed live footage of the Pope on his last day in office. Most of it was unblinking footage of his white helicopter ride to Castle Gandolfo, but what was stuck in my mind was the concept of papal infallibility.
It turns out, this does not mean the Pope in incapable of making a mistake. What it does mean, however, is that it is impossible for him to make and error when he speaks in his capacity as leader of the Catholic Church on issues of doctrine, faith and morals.
Still, that means a two-legged mammal is incapable of making a mistake because of his title. This idea, even when coached in limited terms, is completely absurd and I don't understand how any human being could ever take it seriously for a moment.
Thursday, February 28, 2013
To err is human
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I take it as having a meaning more akin to a supreme court ruling.
ReplyDeleteFrom Vatican 1: "when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, (the Bishop of Rome) defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church"
When the Supreme Court acts in it's capacity as the Supreme Court, there is no higher appeal. That's that. We might change the constitution, but I imagine if there is a God, he can come rewrite scripture as he pleases.
I meant to also say that you might consider the fact that humans are fallible as a reason for the doctrine in the first place. Someone has to have the final word.
ReplyDeleteRemember, these are the same folks who believe that, somehow, lighting a smoke show until the new Pope is decided, smashing the old one's ring and changing the color of his footwear will earn them favor with God. Logic isn't high on their list of priorities. Faith is.
ReplyDeleteAbner
Nate, our Supreme Court is derived of multiple people to avoid human mistakes. Catholics might be better served if the Papacy was held by 13 people.
ReplyDeleteAbner
Well, first, the red shoes and in particular the fisherman's ring, are symbols of the office. As he no longer holds the office, it's right that he not use them and traditions requiring the destruction of the pope's signet ring and such provide no reason why they should be dispensed with on account of resignation, rather than death.
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't matter how many people the court is made of, they act as one. Perhaps one system is more effective than another, but that doesn't mean ultimate authority can only be positively applied by multiple people acting in concert. A safeguard is a safeguard.
I'm also not aware of any reason why the Supreme Court must be made up of more than one person, the number of justices is up to Congress. No matter what they decide the right number is, the function of the court is to issue final decisions on law, so it is with papal infallibility. There are also ecumenical councils that have been convened regularly throughout history, and they also enjoy infallibility, like the pope and our supreme court.
Nate, if they simply wanted to say that the Pope has ultimate authority within the Catholic Church then they are using the wrong word. Infallible means incapable of error, not indestructible authority.
ReplyDeletePerhaps, but that is an issue of words, not concept. He can't pronounce the lottery numbers to be other than what they are, he is only considered without error as far as matters of church doctrine are concerned. You said as much yourself.
ReplyDelete