Is the office of the Papacy an abomination?

[JSojourner]

As Archie Bunker said...

"I don't trust da Pope.  He thinks he's inflammable.  And where does he get off sprinkling incest all over everybody?"

(Seriously -- the problem is not the Papacy.  It's the doctrine of Papal infallability.)

[JSojourner]

As Archie Bunker said...

"I don't trust da Pope.  He thinks he's inflammable.  And where does he get off sprinkling incest all over everybody?"

(Seriously -- the problem is not the Papacy.  It's the doctrine of Papal infallability.)

You do know what is meant by infallibility, right?

Yep.  The joke is that Archie said "inflammable". "Incest" was another malaprop.  For incense.  You gotta be an All in the Family fan to appreciate it, I guess.  LOL

 Archie was famous for his malaprops.

[JSojourner]

As Archie Bunker said...

"I don't trust da Pope.  He thinks he's inflammable.  And where does he get off sprinkling incest all over everybody?"

(Seriously -- the problem is not the Papacy.  It's the doctrine of Papal infallability.)

You do know what is meant by infallibility, right?

Yep.  The joke is that Archie said "inflammable". "Incest" was another malaprop.  For incense.  You gotta be an All in the Family fan to appreciate it, I guess.  LOL

 Archie was famous for his malaprops.

Yeah, I got the joke... I was asking a serious question.

Yep.  The doctrine of Papal Infallability is, as I understand it, the notion that when the Holy Father speaks Ex Cathedra he is speaking the word/words of God and therefore cannot be in error.

[JSojourner]

As Archie Bunker said...

"I don't trust da Pope.  He thinks he's inflammable.  And where does he get off sprinkling incest all over everybody?"

(Seriously -- the problem is not the Papacy.  It's the doctrine of Papal infallability.)

You do know what is meant by infallibility, right?

Yep.  The joke is that Archie said "inflammable". "Incest" was another malaprop.  For incense.  You gotta be an All in the Family fan to appreciate it, I guess.  LOL

 Archie was famous for his malaprops.

Yeah, I got the joke... I was asking a serious question.

Yep.  The doctrine of Papal Infallability is, as I understand it, the notion that when the Holy Father speaks Ex Cathedra he is speaking the word/words of God and therefore cannot be in error.

Correct, but he must be speaking "from the chair", which means he must claim to be speaking for the Church.  No one believes that everything that comes out of the Pope's mouth is absolutely true, and everything he does is right (he can't sin), as is the common misconception... as I like to put it, "the Pope isn't perfect, just infallible."

Papal infallibility has only been officially exercised twice, though there is evidence that it was practice, at least in the western Church, going all the way back to the before the 5th century.  And we know that it was, at least, a common belief by the papacy of Gregory VII.

Thanks, Soulty.  This was my understanding.  My concern is that Papal Encyclicals or Church Doctrines are sometimes passed off as infallible.  For example, our Bishop (who really is a wonderful man and a personal friend) says he is considering denying Holy Communion to Catholics who are pro choice.  He hasn't ruled yet, but he believes the statements of JP II and HH, Pope Benedict allow for no disagreement with church teaching on abortion.  Since neither Pope spoke Ex Cathedra on this issue, I would presume Roman Catholics had room to disagree and still receive the sacrament.

It's really not an issue that affects me, an Episcopalian.  But I do care about my Catholic friends and relatives.

Speaking of our Catholic Bishop -- even though he is very conservative, I really admire him.  He was one of the whistleblowers who was unceremoniously shipped out of the Boston Archdiocese when he complained about predatory clergy.  It took a lot of courage but he stood tall and showed that there are more Godly Catholic clergy out there than bad guys.  His name is John D'Arcy and after almost 20 years in Indiana, he still sounds like he's from Boston.  I love the guy.

[JSojourner]

No, but some positions of the Church (past and present) certainly are.

Example... and keep in mind that I want positions of The Church.

You know, Soulty...the one charge continually lobbed at my RCC brothers and sisters was that they believed in the doctrine of salvation by works or, "earning your way to heaven on your own merit".  That may have been true at one time.  But Protestants, particularly Evangelicals and Fundamentalists, have been very slow to recognize the 1998 Corcordat of Agreement signed by representatives of HH John Paul II and leaders of the Lutheran World Federation.  In short, the RCC and the Lutherans agreed that only the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus could atone for human sin.  They hastened to add that good works were an essential and outward sign of conversion, but insisted that the "miracle of new birth" came about through Christ's work, and not human effort.

While I respected John Paul II before the Concordat, my admiration and affection for him grew by leaps and bounds thereafter.  The document effectively ended 500 years of mutual condemnation between Lutherans and Catholics.  (I am not sure the Missouri and Wisconsin Synod Lutherans got the memo! LOL)

Hoping Canterbury and Rome can also make progress,

Jim