Is it possible to be Catholic and yet deny the infallibility of the Pope? It seems like Francis is deeming all kinds of degeneracy (Marxism, LGBTQP) as acceptable, and I can't support that. I was baptized Catholic, fell away from the church in my teenage years, and once again became drawn to deity in my college years. The Protestant Church and their insistence on sola scriptura is off-putting to me. I appreciate how many of the church fathers such as Augustine and Aquinas did not simply deny pre-christian philosophy as "pagan heresy" but yet were able to draw truths from their dialectic and search for virtue as well. I also believe, just as Tolkien insisted, that God speaks his truths to us through myth and stories, and that one need not limit themselves to seeking God only through the scripture.
Is it possible to be Catholic and yet deny the infallibility of the Pope...
Other urls found in this thread:
catholicbible101.com
en.wikipedia.org
barnhardt.biz
barnhardt.biz
w2.vatican.va
m.ncregister.com
vatican.va
youtu.be
mostholyfamilymonastery.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
twitter.com
for the last time. he has said nothing on those topics that are infallible. not everything the pope says is infallible. you don have to agree with anything he says to be catholic unless its when he speaks ex cathedra
additionally if he ever promulgated heresy he would immediately cease to be Pope
One day, you'll suck off a giraffe so hard his skull will cave into his neck. The colosseum will fucking lose it and give you a standing ovation. Roses thrown, arms held high, women swooning. Only then will you know true glory.
One would hope.
Yes. Look up traditional catholicism.
Go on Fisheaters, Novus Ordo Watch, or Tradition in Action. God Bless.
Only niggers believe in religion or funny hat goys
>Francis is deeming all kinds of degeneracy (Marxism, LGBTQP) as acceptable, and I can't support that
>and that one need not limit themselves to seeking God only through the scripture
And you wonder why the Catholic Church is full of pedos and degenerates. Are all Catholics this stupid?
>God’s word isn’t enough
>The pope’s human judgement is too much for me to accept
The infallibility stuff refers to things of theology matter, political opinions are not theological. Not everything he says is gospel.
Religion = Superstition
>Is it possible to be Catholic and yet deny the infallibility of the Pope?
you asked this.
if he promulgated heresy, it would be the duty of every faithful catholic to deny hes "infallibility" therefore the answer is, of course, but only if he is a heretic. So its not really a matter of hoping.
Why the Catholic Church doesn’t have a cold rocky island somewhere they send all the pedophile priests to, I don’f Know.
>ah, Father, so you like to touch little boys. Well, we have a ministry on Desolation Island, where you shall minister to the sea life while you think about your sins you filthy faggot!
Unless they support pedophile priests. then it all makes sense
*Tips Fedora*
>Is it possible to be Catholic and yet deny the infallibility of the Pope?
No, then you are just Orthodox. Literally the only difference between Roman Catholics and Orthodox is whether they accept the infallibility and supreme authority of the Pope and whether they accept the doctrinal innovations introduced by the Pope after the Schism.
Traditional Catholicism is a meme. See pic related.
He is a heretic. All popes are guilty of apostasy ever since Vatican II. Look up sedevacantism.
SSPX is a meme. They are weak-willed, unwilling to go the full step.
We're not in revolt against the church, because we are the true church. The Novus Ordo current seat of Rome is a sect, nothing more.
>The infallibility stuff refers to things of theology matter, political opinions are not theological.
You're moving the goalposts. Papal infallibility applies to teachings pertaining to faith and morals. So yes, some of his political opinions are not to be understood as infallible, a lot of his innovations pertain to questions of morality (death penalty, Communion for adulterers, not judging fags, etc.).
>We're not in revolt against the church, because we are the true church. The Novus Ordo current seat of Rome is a sect, nothing more.
You are Protestants then. This was literally what Martin Luther claimed.
>deny the infallibility of the Pope?
You can’t do it dogmatically aka “if you don’t believe Francis is a false pope you’re not a true Catholic”. There is however a question of objective doubt considering the heresies he has espoused, and considering that anyone who is a heretic is automatically outside of the Church and therefore it is impossible for someone to be the head of the Church and simultaneously outside of it. Because there is a doubt; he holds no authority, or I should put it this way; as with any law where doubt exists, that law does not bind and as with any authority that is doubtful, any law to flow from it is also doubtful and therefore does not bind.
The doubtfulness of his papacy is a straightforward logical conclusion that anyone can arrive at, and you can truly believe that to be the case; that he is an antipope but you just don’t have the authority to make it dogma. I’m of the opinion that every “Pope” after John XXIII and the Vatican II council has been a false one and we are witnessing the greatest and most organized infiltration of the Church in human history.
>Literally the only difference between Roman Catholics and Orthodox
So Catholic-lite, then.
Learn about "Ex Cathedra" to understand Papal Infallibility. Below is taken from:
>catholicbible101.com
>There are three requirements for infallibility to be invoked:
> 1. The pronouncement must be made by the official successor to Peter.
> 2. The subject matter must be in the area of faith and morals.
> 3. The Pope must be speaking ex cathedra (from the chair) of Peter, and must be intending to proclaim a doctine that binds the entire Church to assent.
If you read the link above, it talks about Papal Infallibility being used only 3 times in Church history.
I just go the you can't retire from being pope route. Benedict is still pope in exile. Francis is a pretender.
And they will be entertained.
orthodox is a little alot different my dude. they never got cucked by Saint "sex is icky" Augustine
Francis is not the Pope, Donald is.
>The 1983 Code of Canon Law mentions papal renunciation in Canon 332, where it states:
>If it happens that the Roman Pontiff resigns his office, it is required for validity that the resignation is made freely and properly manifested but not that it is accepted by anyone.
See en.wikipedia.org
>believing in shit that's not real
Only retard believe in relgion
I've heard retards have trouble conjugating verbs too.
You could look at it that way. Logically, the only true Christianity can only be Orthodoxy or some branch of Protestantism (possibly even Mormonism), but at this time Roman Catholicism has been utterly discredited.
I failed to coniugate the noun not the verb, you double retard
Church has barely anything to do with Christianity anymore. They took it over a long time ago. This satanist piece of shit must hang.
conjugate or decline?
>Is it possible to be Catholic and yet deny the infallibility of the Pope?
non catholic shill detected...fuck off kike
Nope. The resignation of Benedict XVI was valid and in accordance with Canon Law and Church Tradition. See:
>infallibility
Has not been used since Pius XII
I wanted to write "retards" but I forgot an s
It doesn't matter whether or not a teaching is actually binding if what's being espoused is complete heresy in the first place, because heresy itself is enough to to bar one from even being considered Christian.
Whether it be the teachings on ecumenism, or a violation of the indefectibility and unity of the Church by saying that the orthodox who deny infallibility are "inside" the Church, or altering the very idea of communion by saying that non-Catholics can receive the Eucharist or the religious indiferentism and interreligious prayers and acts that have traditionally understood by the Church as clear and blatant apostasy taking place all of the time. All of it is heresy or worse. Vatican II embraces the very things that Pius IX and Vatican I have condemned such as Quanta Cura and the Syllabus of Errors, of which some is very much ex cathedra and fully binding.
The authority of Vatican II is, at the very best, extremely suspect and doubtful and at the worst, a counterfeit counter church of antipopes and an entirely different religion.
I disagree entirely. If Vatican II is the great apostasy prophesied in Apocalypse then it proves that the Catholic and Apostolic Church is the only true faith.
>hurr durr I'm more Catholic than the Pope
Literally why even have a Pope if you have the authority to proclaim what the Pope teaches is heresy?
last pope will be a cuck mah boys. he's definitely serving his own "god" (lucifer).
Alternatively, if Roman Catholic Church is the great apostasy prophesied in Apocalypse then it proves that the Orthodox and Apostolic Church is the only true faith.
Yea you might want to actually read your links the pre cannon and likely apocryphal examples aren't exactly good examples being that many of them were either criminals or disposed by emperors in favor of other anti-popes.
The supposedly cannon ones are barely canon considering celestine was threatened by Boniface and was imprisoned after he was forced out.
and Gregory XII was deposed by the Council of Constantine along with two other anti popes
The canonization of this in the 1980's is already dubious being post vatican 2, additionally it's claim that celestine was a legitimate abdication and not forceful threatening and politics is dubious and clearly a motivated interpretation of Boniface VIII's already biased interpretation of events
The fact that the "Pope" teaches heresy is ipso facto a logical proof that he isn't a Pope in the first place and does not hold the authority of Christ or the seat of St. Peter. A logical proof is not the same as a dogma or divine revelation, thought. Papal authority is extremely important, which is why this is such a big deal in the first place.
No, it doesn't. Because the apostasy is taking place in the Temple of God as prophesied, which isn't an Orthodox Church.
Yes.
The Pope is not infaliable.
You are clearly not Catholic. When the Pope speaks on topics of faith and morality, it is considered infallible because he talked to God before translating it for the plebs.
w2.vatican.va
>The "always" is also a "for ever" – there can no longer be a return to the private sphere. My decision to resign the active exercise of the ministry does not revoke this. I do not return to private life, to a life of travel, meetings, receptions, conferences, and so on. I am not abandoning the cross, but remaining in a new way at the side of the crucified Lord. I no longer bear the power of office for the governance of the Church, but in the service of prayer I remain, so to speak, in the enclosure of Saint Peter. Saint Benedict, whose name I bear as Pope, will be a great example for me in this. He showed us the way for a life which, whether active or passive, is completely given over to the work of God.
>Archbishop Gänswein…said that Pope Francis and Benedict are not two popes “in competition” with one another, but represent one “expanded” Petrine Office with “an active member” and a “contemplative.”
“Therefore, from 11 February 2013, the papal ministry is not the same as before,” he said. “It is and remains the foundation of the Catholic Church; and yet it is a foundation that Benedict XVI has profoundly and lastingly transformed during his exceptional pontificate.”
There is no such thing as a vice pope as there can only be one living pope at a time thus this would put ratzinger's resignation into "substantial error" and render it invalid
vatican.va
>Can. 188 A resignation made out of grave fear that is inflicted unjustly or out of malice, substantial error, or simony is invalid by the law itself.
>giving the power of infallibility to a guy a bunch of sexual deviants have a private secret vote for
I'm all for the idea of a holy human with a direct line to God, but not a regular priest getting magically bestowed such power randomly one day because all their peers decide he does now, since they are tired of the current one. Apparently the previous Pope used to talk to God, but now he can't because the other priests voted on it.
>No, it doesn't. Because the apostasy is taking place in the Temple of God as prophesied, which isn't an Orthodox Church.
Nice circular logic there:
>the Roman Catholic Church is the Temple of God because Vatican II is the Great Apostasy
>the Roman Catholic Church can't be the Great Apostasy because it's the Temple of God
You are clearly not Catholic if you believe that anything spoken Ex Cathedra could be in error, or heretical or harmful the the salvation of souls. If such teaches are, in fact harmful, then it is a proof that the Pope in question did not have such an authority to begin with and was never a Pope.
But it's worse than that, because heresy itself puts one outside of the Church, so it really doesn't have to be Ex Cathedra to begin with, because if a Pope is a heretic and also a Pope, you're saying that a Pope can exist outside of the Church as a head separated form the body.
I'm Catholic but I hate that pope faggot.
Then why does the Church need a Pope at all if you personally have the authority to judge what is and is not a heretical teaching?
Because dogma must be defined by an authority that cannot fall to error. If one Pope denies a dogma previously defined by another, then he has usurped authority.
I'm not claiming it is the prophesied apostasy. I'm just saying that if Vatican II is the apostasy, then it follows that the Catholic faith is the true faith.
The Pope was talking to a poor guy who was ashamed of being gay and who was assaulted by a priest when he was a child.
So he said : " God made you this way and he loves you"
Another time he said to a gay man: " your homosexuality is not a grave sin"
The Pope is tolerant, but not accepting of homosexuality.
I will endure the test, with the help of God.
there can be only one living pope at a time any other elected "pope" is an anti-pope
>God made you this way
The traditional teaching of the Church is that homosexuality requires a deliberate 'twisting' on the part of the homosexual, so that's a heresy.
>your homosexuality is not a grave sin
This is also a heresy. Homosexuality is a mortal sin and is therefore a grave sin.
See Also, Francis is not the first bad Pope. For example, Dante put 4 popes in hell in Divine Comedy (and it was never put in the index, btw) If you put your faith in Vatican only you'll become the most adherent atheist.
Catholicism is not christian! It is a continuation of mystery Babylon and celebrating the same abominable festivals such as Saturnalia(Christmas) and Ishtar's Easter.
>The apostates included a book in New Testament where it is shown that they are apostates
Sounds logical to me..
If the whore is Vatican II, then that makes the Catholic Church the only true faith, user.
Homosexuality is not a sin, it is the homosexual sex that is a sin. If a gay is not having sex he doesn't commit a sin. Also every sexual act not finalized to the reproduction is a sin. So masturbation is also a sin, and oral sex or having sex with a condom or using a birth control pill.
The truths of faith (including the scripture) which have been proclaimed by the popes speaking infallibly from the Chair of Peter are called dogmas. The dogmas make up what is called the deposit of Faith. And the deposit of Faith ended with the death of the last apostle.
This means that when a pope defines a dogma from the Chair of Peter he does not make the dogma true, but rather he proclaims what is already true, what has already been revealed by Christ and delivered to the Apostles.
For a complete understanding of the Pope's infallibility, however, one more thing should be known: His ex cathedra decisions are not the result of his own private deliberations. They are the result of many years – sometimes hundreds of years – of consultation with the other bishops and theologians of the Church. He is, in effect, voicing the belief of the whole Church. His infallibility is not his own private endowment, but rather an endowment of the entire Mystical Body of Christ. Indeed, the Pope's hands are tied with regard to the changing of Christian doctrine. No Pope has ever used his infallibility to change, add, or subtract any Christian teaching; this is because Our Lord promised to be with His Church until the end of the world. (Matt. 28:20).
>Because dogma must be defined by an authority that cannot fall to error. If one Pope denies a dogma previously defined by another, then he has usurped authority.
Never has happened.
Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council, Sess. 3, Chap. 2 on Revelation, 1870, ex cathedra: “Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be a recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding.”
this pope will be the false prophet of the book of revelation if not him , he will surely help bring him about, the catholic church is an abomination teaching prayers to mary and saints and the worship of idols and images and all kinds of abominations.
the end is near and this false prophet is trying to bring all world religions together for peace.
as the bible says "when they say peace and safety sudden destruction comes upon them as travaileth on a woman with child and they will not escape"
the catholic church leads to hell
Lord Jesus Christ is the only way ,not that faggot image the catholics drew and told everyone that's jesus that's blasphemy
wicked church of devil worship
>The whore writes a memo.
>Somehow the whore is no longer a whore.
kek
Anyone still a Catholic is an evil person.
By catholic prophecy, referring to the prophecy of Malacy, this pope is the last pope, the Petrus Romanus to "shepherd the flock through the tribulation."
The Catholic Encyclopedia
, “Heresy,” 1914, Vol. 7, p. 261: “
The pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church.”
Heresy is the obstinate denial or doubt by a baptized person of an article of divine and Catholic Faith. In other words, a baptized person who deliberately denies an authoritative teaching of the Catholic Church is a heretic.
St. Robert Bellarmine, Cardinal and Doctor of the Church, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30:
"A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to be pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction."
mostholyfamilymonastery.com
St. Francis De Sales (17th century), Doctor of the Church, The Catholic Controversy, pp. 305-306:
"Now when he [the Pope] is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church"
Same goes for papal infallibility in general. It's unfalsifiable. If the pope is right, he's infallible. If the pope is wrong, then the man, and not the office, was wrong and the man, not the office, spoke the lies.
Protip: Trust neither the pope nor the office of the pope.
*Malachy
Hive mind. Papal infallibility is unfalsifiable.
Go on and tell us what Francis has said that is infallible.
>Is it possible to be Catholic and yet deny the infallibility of the Pope?
It's not, but infallibility doesn't mean that everything the Pope says is dogma. Infallibility only counts when it's invoked, when the Pope specifically says "guys, this is dogma now because I said so".
> It seems like Francis is deeming all kinds of degeneracy
He isn't, he's saying the same stuff that John Paul II and Benedict XVI were saying, except he sugarcoats it and has a soft way of presenting himself so the media is taking maximum advantage of it to potray him as some ultra liberal game-changer since that's more interesting "news" than just saying "new pope, just like every other pope". When the guy says that he won't judge fags, he's not saying it's a sin. Do you think John Paul II would have said "fuck fags, man"? They're clergymen, their job is liturgy, sacraments and advice. Faggotry is a sin, but fags aren't discouraged from being Catholics, they're just discouraged from acting on homosexual desires.
t. Orthodox
In order for the Pope to be "infallible" on a particular statement, however, four conditions must apply: 1) he must be speaking ex cathedra . . . that is, "from the Chair" of Peter, or in other words, officially, as head of the entire Church; 2) the decision must be for the whole Church; 3) it must be on a matter of faith or morals; 4) the Pope must have the intention of making a final decision on a teaching of faith or morals, so that it is to be held by all the faithful. It must be interpretive, not originative; the Pope has no authority to originate new doctrine. He is not the author of revelation – only its guardian and expounder. He has no power to distort a single word of Scripture, or change one iota of divine tradition. His infallibility is limited strictly to the province of doctrinal interpretation, and it is used quite rarely. It is used in order to clarify, to "define," some point of the ancient Christian tradition. It is the infallibility of which Christ spoke when He said to Peter, the first Pope: "I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven." (Matt. 16:19). Certainly Christ would not have admonished His followers to "hear the church" (Matt. 18:17) without somehow making certain that what they heard was the truth – without somehow making the teaching magisterium of His Church infallible.
Protestant denominations, on the other hand, feel free to change their doctrines. For example, all Protestant denominations once taught that contraception was gravely sinful; but since 1930, when the Church of England's Lambeth Conference decided contraception was no longer a sin, virtually all Protestant ministers in the world have accepted this human decision and changed their teaching.
A)Papal infallibility does not just apply to everything a pope says
B)The problems with Pope Francis are greatly exaggerated by anti-Catholics, SJW's looking for sources of legitimacy, and reporters who don't misreport what he said because they don't understand Catholic theology. A lot of what's left over is simply due to him being a Theologian, not an expert in geopolitics. Don't forget that he was saying it would be legitimate to intervene and stop ISIS well before anyone was really doing much about them, including Russia. In modern day political dialogue, that's basically the equivalent of him calling for a crusade.
>reporters who don't misreport
*reporters who misreport
>he isn't a follower of the true supreme pontiff of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church
Nothing. Zip. Zilch. Nada.
He's the False Prophet of Mystery Babylon.
Popes have been doing stupid shit all throughout history.
Most of them were bought/bullied/puppeteered by European monarchs, same shit now.
Catholics were on the wrong side of the schism, Jesus never gave supremacy to Rome and explicitly stated no one man should have reign over the church.
wrong you fucking idiot and im clearly a better catholic than you. its matters of faith and morals AND speaking ex cathedra
No he is the anti-pope of a counter church.
Might help if you understood Catholic Doctrine.
youtube.com
Babylon is the counter church.
youtube.com
Mt 16 13-23
>and there must never be a recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding.
How does that refute what I said? The same Pope you quoted, Pope Pius IX has an Encyclical condemning modernity and the errors of religious liberty as "liberty of perdition" (Quanta Cura 1864) which Vatican II in turn teaches the exact opposite in Dignitatis Humanae, in which not only should people be allowed to follow false religions but it then says that they should be completely unrestrained from doing so, despite whatever logical conclusions follow.
Why do you think the whore is a whore? What do you think the fornication is? I'll give you a hint; it's all forms of idolatry and apostasy that the Vatican II has promulgated, which has been completely contrary to the teaching of the Church since all time until Vatican II.
Why would you follow the Pope if you'd be a better Pope?
>jesus said some nice things to peter
>therefore an arbitrarily elected bloke from argentina two thousands years on has unchecked control over the theology and practice of all christianity
catholics everyone
>How does that refute what I said? The same Pope you quoted, Pope Pius IX has an Encyclical condemning modernity and the errors of religious liberty as "liberty of perdition" (Quanta Cura 1864) which Vatican II in turn teaches the exact opposite in Dignitatis Humanae, in which not only should people be allowed to follow false religions but it then says that they should be completely unrestrained from doing so, despite whatever logical conclusions follow.
..and that's why Vatican 2 established a counter church. It was a pastoral council and not dogmatic.
Pope Paul VI: "In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it has avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogma carrying the mark of infallibility.`` --Pope Paul VI, Audience of 12 January, 1966
Nope. Because Catholicism as a whole is heresy. Nowhere in the Bible does it say the pope should even exist. And also Catholic priests have a long history of child diddling.
Just become orthodox bro it's kinda similar.
>because we are the true church.
Aint that the mormons? They go around shit talking other Christians and saying how they are the true church.
"And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."
"And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
Pretty explicit
You mean the Bible that the Catholic Church gave you ?
The early Church fathers, the prominent early Christian writers of the first centuries, recognized that Peter is the rock on which Jesus ONE church was founded. There are many citations one could bring forward, but here are just a few.
Tertullian, On Monogamy, 213 A.D., refers to Peter and speaks of the Church,
“built upon him...” (The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 1:381)
St. Cyril of Alexandria (370-444), who played a key role with the Council of
Ephesus, stated in his Commentary on John: “He [Jesus] suffers him to be no
longer called Simon... He changed his name into Peter, from the word petra
(rock); for on him He was afterwards to found His Church.”
St. Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.), Against Eunomians, 4: “Peter... who on
account of the pre-eminence of his faith received upon himself the building of the Church.”
St. Gregory Nazienzen, great Eastern father (329-389 A.D.), Oration 26: “... of
all the disciples of Christ, all of whom were great and deserving of the choice, one is called rock and entrusted with the foundations of the Church...”
St. John Chrysostom, great Eastern father and Bishop of Constantinople, Homily
3, De. Poenit. 4, 387 A.D. “Peter himself the head or crown of the Apostles...
when I name Peter I name that unbroken rock, that firm foundation...”
One could also quote St. Ambrose, Jerome and many others, but the point should be clear.
All this was written before the Bible had been made into one book at the 397 AD in Carthage
Jesus made Peter the first Pope..
Now what’s particularly important is that when Jesus says Feed my lambs, Tend my sheep, Feed my sheep, the second command of the three is the word poimaine in Greek. Many bibles will translate all three the same way, as “feed”; but the second command is actually different from the first and third.
John 21:15-17 “He saith unto him, Feed [Boske] my lambs... He saith unto him,
Tend [Poimaine] my sheep... Jesus saith unto him, Feed [Boske] my sheep.”
In the first and the third commands that Jesus gives to Peter about His flock, the word in the Greek is boske. Boske means to feed. But the word poimaine, the second command of Jesus to Peter about the flock, means to rule. It is also translated as tend.
Hence, Jesus not only commissioned Peter to feed His Church, but to rule it. It’s fascinating that a form of the very same word poimaine, which Jesus uses about Peter’s authority over the flock in John 21:16, is also used in
Revelation 2:27.
Rev. 2:27 “And he shall rule [poimanei] them with a rod of iron...”
That means that Peter not only has a primacy over Christ’s flock, but a primacy of jurisdiction to rule and govern the flock. The same word poimaine is used in Rev. 12:5 and elsewhere to indicate the power to rule.
Here’s what the great Eastern father of the Church, St. John Chrysostom, said about this passage in John 21.
St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on John, 88,:
“Jesus saith unto him,‘Feed my sheep.’ And why, having passed by the others, does He speak with Peter on these matters? He was the chosen one of the apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the leader of the band... the denial was done away, Jesus putteth into his hands the chief authority among the brethren; and He bringeth not forward the denial, nor reproacheth him with what had taken place, but saith, ‘If thou lovest Me, preside over thy brethren.’” (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. 14:331)
In John 21, that Jesus entrusts all of His sheep to St. Peter. The dogmatic
First Vatican Council of the Catholic Church said that this moment in John 21, after the Resurrection of Jesus, was the moment that Jesus actually gave to St. Peter the keys and the authority over His church which He had promised him in Matthew 16.
It’s important to emphasize that this moment after the Resurrection, in John 21, was the point at which Jesus made St. Peter the first pope. This is significant because non-Catholics bring up St. Peter’s three-fold denial of Christ in John 18:25 and following. When Peter denied Jesus Christ, it was before the Crucifixion and Resurrection. Jesus had not yet given St. Peter the authority as pope.
The words in Mt. 16:18-20 promise the keys of the Kingdom to St. Peter. They promise that Jesus would build His Church upon Him and make him the prime minister of His Church, but that office was not conferred upon Peter until after the Resurrection, by these words in John 21:15-17. Therefore, St. Peter’s denial of Christ poses no problem at all for Catholic teaching on the papacy.
Further, the Catholic Church does not teach that a true pope cannot sin mortally or even lose his soul. It teaches that a true pope holds the position of supreme authority in the Church, and that when a true pope teaches in a building fashion to the universal Church, God will protect him from teaching error. The power is in the office itself, which is protected by Christ.
See
This passage is fascinating because it contains a number of important truths. First of all, there
is a strife among the Apostles about who will be the greatest. Jesus explains that His
Kingdom is not like that of the Gentiles. So Jesus is talking about how His Kingdom
or Church is structured.
Jesus then says that Satan has desired to sift all the apostles in the plural, but that He
has prayed for Peter [singular] that Peter’s faith fail not.
Luke 22:31-32 “And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired
to have you [hymas:Greek ye:Old English] [plural], that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee
[tou:Greek Thee:Old English][singular], that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy
brethren.”
It’s important to note that when Jesus says “Satan hath desired to have you,” the “you”
is in the plural. This is clear in the original Greek text, but not in the English. Satan
desired to have all the Apostles, Jesus says; but He prayed for Simon Peter alone, that
his faith fail not. Peter, the one who receives the keys of the Kingdom, also has an
unfailing faith, according to the words of Jesus. Jesus says this only about Peter,
clearly separating him from the rest.
papal infallibility only applies to dogma, not random statements.
also francis is an antipope