Some trivia about the Catholic doctrine of infallibility.

It surprises me how many people do not understand the Catholic doctrine of the infallibility of the Pope. But even most Catholics are unaware of the history of the doctrine.

The Catholic Church did not adopt the doctrine of papal infallibility until late in the 19th century. Pius IX issued the doctrine. He also issued the Syllabus of Errors, which was basically a sort of childish tantrum denouncing every idea that differed from his own notion of traditional Catholicism. It denounced the Enlightenment; it denounced freedom of thought and freedom of religion; it denounced the right of civil authority to permit other religions than the Roman Catholic Church.

Pius IX wanted to assure that his own reactionary and bigoted ideas could never be challenged by future church leaders, even by future popes.

But the idea of papal infallibility actually originated in the 13th century, with Franciscans, who wanted to prevent reform within the church, since if papal edicts are infallible then they cannot ever be revoked.

At that time, the doctrine was rejected by the Church and the Pope, because they did not want their power to be limited by the decrees of earlier popes.

So it was not until the First Vatican Council that infallibility was adopted. But there's a problem, which remains unresolved to this day:

Infallibility only applies to statements relating to dogma, made ex cathedra, but what of such statements made by popes before the doctrine was officially accepted as dogma? Which pronouncements of earlier popes, over the Church's 2,000-year history, fall under the rubric of papal infallibility, and cannot therefore be reformed? This question remains unresolved.

Papal infallibility does not mean that the Pope is perfect or sinless, or that his statements not made ex cathedra are necessarily free from error.

Source for this post is the lecture series "The Catholic Church: A History" from The Teaching Company, taught by Professor William R. Cook, himself a Catholic, and disposed to believe all the god and christ nonsense one expects from Christians, but otherwise an interesting and well-presented course.

 

One item from the Syllabus of Errors asserted that it is an error to imagine that salvation is possible outside the Roman Catholic Church. I.e. Pius IX claimed that you could not go to heaven unless he personally approved of your beliefs, right down to the most trivial item of dogma.

Of course, many religions claim something similar (though liberal Protestant denominations typically allow some leeway on the less important theological questions).

I am fascinated by religious beliefs in part because of this widespread belief that "If you don't believe exactly the same unfounded idiocy that I believe, a loving god will send you to a place of torture forever." How is it that a brain capable of any kind of reasoning at all could cling to such crap?

 

Something that does not exist cannot change

Better late than never. :rockon:

 

I agree with this. The problem cannot lie with someone who does not exist. The problem lies with us. Or, to quote Pogo: "We have met the enemy, and he is us."

I've long said that if people treated each other as they treat their loved family, the worst government in the world could not harm us; but that if people hate and fear each other, the best government in the world cannot help us.

Unfortunately, religion fosters hate and fear. It preaches love even as it kills those who follow other beliefs.

 

The generalization is valid. One just has to look at the history of religions. You are correct that not all suffering is caused by religion, and correct that many people who believe in religion are good people. I do not judge PEOPLE based on their beliefs. The problem is with religion itself, which divides people from each other and tells people that "other" beliefs are misguided at best or "devil worship" at worst, and which teaches small children to accept WITHOUT QUESTION ideas which are preposterous from the start, and which an unbiased observer would reject out of hand.

Not all tyrants are motivated by religion, but when religion holds political power it is always tyrannical.

The Catholic doctrine of papal infallibility is a claim that god speaks directly to the Pope (or more precisely, that god prevents the Pope from making errors when the Pope speaks ex cathedra.) And the Catholic Church further claims that it is god's ONLY true representative on Earth. Anyone who believes this must necessarily believe that believers of all other faiths are outside of god's grace, and therefore less human or less important; and historically, when the Church had the political power to enforce its will, it murdered those people without compunction. Other religions have done the same whenever they held the political power to do so.