Can the Pope Teach HERESY? (Dr. Ed Feser)

[@anng.4542]

The level of ignorance on the part of many people posting here is truly amazing. Very few Catholics, and even fewer Protestants, seem to understand what "papal infallability" actually means. It is very limited and applies in extremely rare circumstances. And no one "worships" the pope.

[@adam7402]

@@anng.4542 I think Catholics do worship the Pope. And papal infallibility applies to the magisterium as well, so it's not rare.

[@petervan333]

Not so. Vatican I (1870) formulates the (seemingly strict) conditions for an infallible teaching, but those conditions are actually fulfilled much sooner and much easier than most people think. The Pope must have the intention to teach the christian people a certain religious truth, and the intention to settle this matter once and for all is implied in this intention to teach. So when the Pope teaches something (in the form of a letter, a book or a speech) on religious matters he is already exercizing his infallible authority. The difference with an "ex cathedra" formula is not the level of infallibility, but the OBLIGATION TO BELIEVE. All teachings of the Pope are infallible, but only the "ex cathedra" ones are mandatory faith. If you have trouble believing this, read Denzinger 1683 1792 C1323, it says: "Ecclesia infallibitatem suam exercet sive solemni iudicio sive ordinario magisterio universali", translated it says: "The Church is infallible when declaring solemn pronounciations and also through her ordinary teaching authority" please take special notice of the latter part of this sentence: ".....and also through her ordinary teaching authority" in other words the Church is not only infallible when she speaks "ex cathedra", but also through the "ordinary magisterium" and that means the Pope teaching something through letters, speeches, books and public hearings. No need for a solemn declaration in order to invoke infallibility. The infallibility is always there, but she becomes MANDATORY BELIEF when pronounced in an "ex cathedra" form.

[@joelpenley9791]

I actually don’t understand the view that if Catholicism is somehow proven wrong then Orthodox must be true. The claims about the papacy are historical and can be traced back to Peter. If that is wrong, then all of Christianity has serious problems. How could the church be so wrong, right from the beginning?

[@Deathbytroll]

That’s only if you accept that Papism was taught from the beginning and that’s an impossible claim to support given the history of the Church and how it functioned in the first millennium.

[@mousakandah5188]

not just that, but keep in mind that the Church Fathers taught the Filioque yet Orthodoxy anathematizes that. so even if Catholicism is wrong, Orthodoxy is still wrong.

[@ablarod948]

First, the filioque was NOT in the Creed. And that teaching was affirmed by later ecumenical councils. The councils are the supreme authority, not any Church Father's opinions on the matter. It was the Catholic Church that added it in violation of the Councils not the Orthodox Church that removed it. Second, assuming Peter had a grant of authority to give, and it passed to the Bishop of Rome because we all assume he was at some point the bishop of Rome, then why doesn't the Bishop of Antioch have that same authority for Peter who was known to be the Bishop of Antioch first?

[@Cklert]

@@ablarod948 "First, the filioque was NOT in the Creed. And that teaching was affirmed by later ecumenical councils. " As was the Constantinople addition. Don't see a fuss with that. "The councils are the supreme authority, not any Church Father's opinions on the matter." And yet the councils often look toward the Fathers when making decrees. Such was the case at both Ephesus and Nicaea. This is what happened at Florence. We listed off a whole bunch of Church Fathers, including Eastern ones in support of it. And not even Mark of Ephesus couldn't refute it. " It was the Catholic Church that added it in violation of the Councils not the Orthodox Church that removed it" All Ephesus said was that the Creed as proclaimed by Nicaea was not to be modified. This did not include the addition at Constantinople. Regardless, all the Filioque is, is a clarification for Latin speakers. Hence why we don't bind any Eastern Churches to use it. "Second, assuming Peter had a grant of authority to give, and it passed to the Bishop of Rome because we all assume he was at some point the bishop of Rome, then why doesn't the Bishop of Antioch have that same authority for Peter who was known to be the Bishop of Antioch first? Because Peter's office still existed after he left Antioch. Peter didn't just stop becoming the head bishop once he left. Ignatius of Antioch himself, said that Rome envies no one, and he was the 3rd Bishop of Antioch.

[@christopherneedham9584]

I mean, the claims about the papacy originated in the 6th century and weren’t dogmatized until a thousand years later.

[@schmudej85]

The bot farms are strong in this comments section.

[@waseemhermiz7565]

You talking about all this magnetic aura nonsense?

[@KellyS_77]

@@waseemhermiz7565 yep

[@benclark1482]

Ed Feser's book Aristotle's revenge is the best philosophy of nature book ever written!

[@Tomista4433]

Just after Maritain.

[@gladtrad]

I'm sure Lofton would find a way to square that circle.

[@midwestthomist3362]

Is it a contradiction to say that a Pope could "teach error while speaking ex cathedra?" Wouldn't the simple fact that he "is teaching heresy" mean that "he is absolutely not speaking ex cathedra?"

[@berniepfitzner487]

Yeah, Romanism is unfalsifiable

[@benry007]

Wouldn't that mean the Pope is infallible only when he is right? Meaning absolutely nothing. I'm infallible only when I'm saying something totally true. What a meaningless statement.

[@karlheven8328]

@@benry007He would simply not be the Pope and excommunicate himself which would by most scholars be declared by a successor because only the Sea can judge the Pope.

[@iamdigory]

The protestant claim is that this has happened

[@baxterbunch]

Not just Protestants I’m orthodox and would say it already happened

[@VeritasVivet]

@@baxterbunch Protestants 🤝 Orthodox when the pope is teaching heresy 🗿

[@tusolusdominus]

First sedevacantists lol

[@samuelwalker1410]

@@tusolusdominus no, Sedevacantists overemphasize the Ordinary Magisterium. They acknowledge that there was no intention that Vatican II teach infallibly.

[@benry007]

Surely the way of seeing if Roman Catholicism is wrong is not to make a condition that requires 100 years to test. Why not look back and see where positions the church holds have changed? If in a hundred years no one agrees with the death penalty no one will use it as a test.

[@saetainlatin]

I recommend numeral 1550 of the catechism of the Catholic church

[@notnotandrew]

Ed: "In principle, if a pope teaches some doctrinal error, and initially it's very controversial, but gradually it settles in, and those who hold to the older opinion kind of die out, and 100 or 200 years pass, and now it becomes settled Catholic teaching, but it conflicts with everything that was said before, and if it conflicts with scripture, even if it's not something that's been formally defined, I would say that would falsify Catholicism." If the church's teaching on some secondary issue were to be reversed, and if there were no residual controversy about it 100-200 years from now (or, say, 1,237 years from now), then, by that point, the faithful would necessarily have found some way to explain away the church's complete reversal of doctrine, or else to obscure the historical belief of those that preceded them. Thankfully, God is just and merciful, and would still find ways to call his sheep to himself, even in the midst of pervasive error on non-essential issues.

[@aesop1451]

Usury, Dignitatis Humanae (religious freedom), Nostra Aetate (Chosen people), Limbo, and "no salvation outside the Church" (Unam Sanctum vs Lumen Gentium).

[@chissstardestroyer]

Settled church teachings have also been false, and the proof is if it teaches even *one* member to go into immorality; it is false regardless of the degree of its entrenchment in the faith's DNA.

[@JuanPablo-ts4vd]

@@notnotandrew well said. Peter was rebuked by Paul so that in my opinion falsifies the doctrine of “Papal Infallibility”.

[@diamondlou1]

@@JuanPablo-ts4vd Was Peter speaking "ex cathedra"?

[@karlheven8328]

⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠@@aesop1451According to renowned Church historian Cardinal Brandmüller Nostra Aetate and Dignitas Humana are not doctrinal in nature but pastoral statements of significance for changing relations of the church in a new age. Usury teaching is something that was never defined but also subject to changing societal situations given that the church is in a field where the lawmaker are the states (just like gambling, prostitution, etc. that are also not to be banned absolutely if not for a greater societal good (question of proportionality) according to St. Thomas and Augustine). Limbo was never in papal magisterium just a very popular theologians view (which I find very appealing also). And what changed in Lumen Gentium? Nothing about extra ecclesiam nulla salus was changed, the only thing that changed is that now the Church had decided to not be a mere bystander in the worldwide ecumenical movement but to guide it according to universal principles towards truth in spirit of seeking truth. The goal is to end the schism of the Orthodox but also to bring the Protestants back to the church.

[@timrichardson4018]

That's been my understanding. Infallibility means the Holy Spirit will prevent the Pope and magisterium from declaring something false in official teachings. Jesus saying to his apostles, "The Holy Spirit will lead you into all truth" has to mean, at the very least, that the church's official teachings will not be wrong. It doesn't mean the teachings will be said the best way, will be complete, won't need clarification, etc. It doesn't mean it should have been said at all. But it has to at least mean the substance of the teaching won't be wrong.

[@franj1142]

Why did you choose such an unflattering picture of the Pope in your thumbnail ?? As you are asking the question ’if the pope can teach HERESY’

[@Athleta_Christi]

@@franj1142 maybe its just a picture… lol

[@fernandosaludes4515]

The concept of papal infallibility means A pope can be a sinner /devil as shown in Churcn history but he cannot teach errors heresy, Peter denied Christ but he never taught anyone to deny Christ.

[@miiscrayolacat2]

It seems there are two forms of evil, one from more ignorance and one from greater knowledge and understanding. Neither actually makes Christianity false. Judas didn't falsify Christ. In some ways, this actually proves Christianity right.

[@glennlanham6309]

now we see why Jesus chose Judas....

[@catholictraditionalist8309]

A Pope engaging in heresy would not falsify Catholicism. Instead, it would simply mean that he automatically ex-communicated himself from the Church.

[@GaryM260]

go read all of Vatican 1

[@GuadalupePicasso]

@@GaryM260 please quote the text that speaks directly to this?

[@sleepystar1638]

@@GaryM260 Commissum Divinitus On Church and State Pope Gregory XVI - 1835 5. This power of teaching and governing in matters of religion, given by Christ to His Spouse, belongs to the priests and bishops. Christ established this system not only so that the Church would in no way belong to the civil government of the state, but also so that it could be totally free and not subject in the least to any earthly domination. Jesus Christ did not commit the sacred trust of the revealed doctrine to the worldly leaders, but to the apostles and their successors. He said to them only: “Whoever hears you, hears Me; whoever rejects you, rejects Me.” These same apostles preached the Gospel, spread the Church, and established its discipline not in accordance with the pleasure of lay authority, but even in spite of it. Moreover, when the leaders of the synagogue dared command them to silence, Peter and John, who had used the evangelical freedom, responded: “You be the judge of whether it is right in the eyes of God to listen to you rather than to God.” Thus, if any secular power dominates the Church, controls its doctrine, or interferes so that it cannot promulgate laws concerning the holy ministry, divine worship, and the spiritual welfare of the faithful, it does so to the injury of the faith and the overturning of the divine ordinance of the Church and the nature of government.

[@ablarod948]

The point of the papacy is to provide some certainty to Christianity. We have to assume he is not a heretic and are required to follow his pronouncements, even the ones that are not issued ex cathedra. (You know this is true. To many Catholics, deference means obedience regardless of the formality of the statement.) But if at some point decades later we decide that the pope was a heretic, then the damage is already done. The doctrine of the papacy has failed and with it the Catholic Church whose only real unifying doctrine is swearing loyalty to the papacy above everything else.

[@jordanp3470]

Well Vatican 2 is canonizing heretics like jp2 and John xxiii… So…

[@jamesms4]

Bellermine taught Papal Heresy caused the Pope to automatically loose his office. But as Archbishop Schneider correctly noted. That view is a theory of Bellermine's not a doctrine of the Church. That is the main simple error of the Sedes.

[@andrewclarke3044]

To be fair that was just a thought experiment. He thought it was impossible for a pope to teach heresy, “but in a hypothetical situation this is what follows.”

[@Iesu-Christi-Servus]

Bellarmine is a clown doctor. Many of his "probable" opinions are simply wrong. The fact that "radtrads" and popesplainers try to drag him to their side is just like watching 2 dogs quarrelling over a rotten piece of bone.

[@TonyT-jn9vf]

@@andrewclarke3044 exactly.

[@jamesms4]

@@andrewclarke3044 That is good to know thanks for the imput. Cheers mate.:D

[@catholictraditionalist8309]

If you claim it's a sede error, then you're claiming a church doctor, Saint Bellarmine, was in error in his 5th opinion. So you know better than St Bellarmine?

[@johncopper5128]

Thank you.

[@luisgonzalez1637]

I ride with the Bishop of Rome, viva Papa Fransisco!

[@cfban]

I prefer to "ride" with Christ and the Catholic Church, thanks.

[@hyeminkwun9523]

From Our Lord's 9/5/2015 message to Luz de Maria: "Anyone, who calls himself a Catholic, but is a heretic, is a server of the Antichrist."

[@myfakinusername]

@@cfban That's what he said

[@JanGavlas]

@@hyeminkwun9523Then the Pope is totally ok.

[@hyeminkwun9523]

@@JanGavlas Are you joking?

[@Qwerty-jy9mj]

If the papacy were falsified, I'd immediately become an atheist.

[@josephesquivel4066]

I would it would simply nullify the validity of his papacy. Catholicism itself would remain but his seating in office would no longer hold its validity.

[@AidaPolanco-l8k]

not saying this isn’t interesting, but books like Magnetic Aura by Takeshi Mizuki make this look like child’s play

[@mikemccarthy6719]

What does the book say?

[@tuneaddict2655]

The fact that Catholics reaction would be, the church is false, rather than we misinterpreted scripture in regards to the infallibility of the church.. Is itself an indictment of Catholicism. It’s absolutely moronic to read the Bible and think that’s how God works. No one would ever read the Bible absent thousands of years of church teaching, clearly influenced by politics, and think there will ever be an infallible human leader or even a leader infallible in their role. God has always let leaders stumble to show that only he is fully trustworthy and fully good.

[@glennlanham6309]

I am willing to bet you think YOUR interpretation is absolutely infallible. Humility rules

[@tuneaddict2655]

@ Absolutely not lol Humanity is fallible, period. I’m absolutely sure I’m wrong on many things. Fortunately, we can lean on the Holy Spirit and scripture in addition to the church in order to seek out truth and deepen our relationship with God. And thank God we have Christ’s grace for our shortcomings, blind spots, and failures to properly discern the truth on every subject.

[@pcola4594]

An interesting thought experiment. Let’s follow it through. Why can we trust the scriptures? I mean what we claim to be sacred scripture, why should we trust that it is authentic?

[@tuneaddict2655]

@@pcola4594 There’s multiple reasons. To name a couple: I think there’s solid historical evidence that the early church(obvious cults aside) agreed on most or all of the canon before the establishment of the Roman Catholic Church. If you’re Catholic, I’m guessing you’d contest that statement. So setting that aside, I also believe God works through fallible human beings to ensure the preservation of his word. I partially believe that because the scripture as it currently it exists seems so improbable to have come about any other way. It’s so consistent with itself and so beyond human in its wisdom. I also believe that partially out of necessity. It’s the only way Christianity works. I’d be open to applying a similar logic to the infallibility and authority of the Catholic Church if I thought that was at all viable. However, the Catholic Church’s record doesn’t live up to that of scripture. I recognize that many Catholic Christians have been used by God. Including many who God used to preserve and propagate scripture. I’d even say I think they get a good number of things right that the reformers get wrong. Same for the baptists. I believe the True Church is not an institution but that it is God’s people who genuinely seek his voice and believe in the gospel, no matter how infallible they or their institutions are.

[@tuneaddict2655]

@@pcola4594Well, I had a longer answer that didn’t post because I’m in the mountains, but basically for multiple reasons. I think the scripture speaks for itself to some degree. The level of consistency and wisdom. There’s also many tests we can put the canon through vs the other books that were not included(including IMO, much of the apocrypha) that give evidence of its authenticity and inspired nature. I also believe there’s solid evidence that even before the councils, the early churches that weren’t obvious cults were already starting to accept those books as canon. And of course the early church councils and the Catholic Church eventually played their roles in preserving and spreading the scripture/gospel as well. I believe God preserves his word, even using fallible men to do so.

[@user-tg2fh6uz8s]

I donno im learning all this cool catholic stuff myself right now, Francis does say some weird stuff and Vatican 2 seems to be in violation of the Quo Primum.

[@TakumaNuva]

Nothing about Vatican II runs against Quo Primum.

[@TedSeeber]

We came close...just this year. Luckily, a pope rapping with kids in an ecumenical discussion club is not infallible. The heresy of indifferentism is very strong in the curia right now. Hedonism makes more sense than Indifferentism.

[@AndrewDolder]

Vatican II teaches that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church, a teaching that Pope Francis affirmed in his Magisterium yet again, and you missed it somehow. Are you referring to the out-of-context non-magisterial commentary in an interfaith dialogue meeting? lol

[@TedSeeber]

@@AndrewDolder Can you give me the quote for EENS in Vatican II documents? Nostra Aetate comes close to denying indifferentism in section two "The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men. Indeed, she proclaims, and ever must proclaim Christ "the way, the truth, and the life" (John 14:6), in whom men may find the fullness of religious life, in whom God has reconciled all things to Himself.(4)" But some would interpret that as being the source of the modern confusion of indifferentism. And yes, I missed anything from Pope Francis refuting "God wills a diversity of religion" from the Abu Dhabi agreement, combined with the remarks to the young people in the Philippines. Some even go so far as to say this quote from Lumen Gentium 8, explicitly *denies* the concept of visible membership in Catholicism being important for salvation: 8. Christ, the one Mediator, established and continually sustains here on earth His holy Church, the community of faith, hope and charity, as an entity with visible delineation (9*) through which He communicated truth and grace to all. But, the society structured with hierarchical organs and the Mystical Body of Christ, are not to be considered as two realities, nor are the visible assembly and the spiritual community, nor the earthly Church and the Church enriched with heavenly things; rather they form one complex reality which coalesces from a divine and a human element.(10*) For this reason, by no weak analogy, it is compared to the mystery of the incarnate Word. As the assumed nature inseparably united to Him, serves the divine Word as a living organ of salvation, so, in a similar way, does the visible social structure of the Church serve the Spirit of Christ, who vivifies it, in the building up of the body.(73) (11*) This is the one Church of Christ which in the Creed is professed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic, (12*) which our Saviour, after His Resurrection, commissioned Peter to shepherd,(74) and him and the other apostles to extend and direct with authority,(75) which He erected for all ages as "the pillar and mainstay of the truth".(76) This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him,(13*) although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity. Just as Christ carried out the work of redemption in poverty and persecution, so the Church is called to follow the same route that it might communicate the fruits of salvation to men. Christ Jesus, "though He was by nature God . . . emptied Himself, taking the nature of a slave",(77) and "being rich, became poor"(78) for our sakes. Thus, the Church, although it needs human resources to carry out its mission, is not set up to seek earthly glory, but to proclaim, even by its own example, humility and self-sacrifice. Christ was sent by the Father "to bring good news to the poor, to heal the contrite of heart",(79) "to seek and to save what was lost".(80) Similarly, the Church encompasses with love all who are afflicted with human suffering and in the poor and afflicted sees the image of its poor and suffering Founder. It does all it can to relieve their need and in them it strives to serve Christ. While Christ, holy, innocent and undefiled(81) knew nothing of sin,(82) but came to expiate only the sins of the people,(83) the Church, embracing in its bosom sinners, at the same time holy and always in need of being purified, always follows the way of penance and renewal. The Church, "like a stranger in a foreign land, presses forward amid the persecutions of the world and the consolations of God"(14*), announcing the cross and death of the Lord until He comes."(84) By the power of the risen Lord it is given strength that it might, in patience and in love, overcome its sorrows and its challenges, both within itself and from without, and that it might reveal to the world, faithfully though darkly, the mystery of its Lord until, in the end, it will be manifested in full light.

[@TedSeeber]

@@AndrewDolder Some would say that this quote, from Section 8 of Lumen Gentium, explicitly denies that there is no salvation outside of the visible Catholic Church: This is the one Church of Christ which in the Creed is professed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic, (12*) which our Saviour, after His Resurrection, commissioned Peter to shepherd,(74) and him and the other apostles to extend and direct with authority,(75) which He erected for all ages as "the pillar and mainstay of the truth".(76) This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him,(13*) although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity.

[@cfban]

​@@AndrewDolderIt is not out of context. The Pope explicitly said heresy in an informal setting. Which is extremely scandalous, but not the same as formally teaching heresy (which would either prove him to be a false Pope, or would falsify Catholicism). Yes, Francis has affirmed the teaching that there is no salvation outside the Church formally. He has also contradicted it informally. He is a mess and a horrible Pope who confuses and scandalizes the faithful with heretical informal declarations. But so far it doesn't seem he has formally taught heresy.

[@pcola4594]

@@AndrewDolder I watched the entire discussion of the Holy Father. It wasn’t out of context, in fact when you watch the whole thing it is even more damning. Only someone who can take a world like couple and say it really means individual would think that “all religions are paths to God”.

[@G-MIP]

No need to watch. The answer is “No he cannot.”

[@Seraphim33AD]

Mustache 🥸

[@davidlarsson7555]

Problem is that Pope Francis hasn't taught that capital punishment is intrinsically evil, which is the premise of his argument that this "must" be reversed. Inadmissible is not the same thing as intrinsically evil. Inadmissible is a practical application. It isn't free from doctrinal development, but it doesn't contradict previous Magisterium. It is also in line with the Magisterium of St John Paul II.

[@anthonyjones866]

I used to agree with you, until the release of the 2024 Declaration of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith “Dignitas Infinita,” which was signed by Pope Francis: “the death penalty . . . also violates the inalienable dignity of every person, regardless of the circumstances.” That goes far beyond what the catechism change said about merely being practically “inadmissible.”

[@GuadalupePicasso]

Except JP2 didn’t change the catechism to reflect his personal views on this.

[@davidlarsson7555]

@@GuadalupePicasso Seriously? Have you read earlier documents on the death penalty and see NO development in the CCC under JPII? There's a VERY different emphasis.

[@davidlarsson7555]

@@anthonyjones866 How is this substantially different from Evangelium Vitae n 40 and n 56? That's an encyclical of a Pope, so it carries more weight than a Declaration of the DDF, and I can't see a SUBSTANTIAL disagreement. And I see several ways of resolving the tension. So it's not something that "must" be reversed to stop the falsification of Catholicism. I would say that to presume to make such a judgment is way more problematic.

[@davidlarsson7555]

@@anthonyjones866 Seems like my other comment disappeared. How are those substantially different from Evangelium Vitae n 40 and n 56?

[@jacklawsen6390]

He already has.

[@samuelwalker1410]

I would just assume that the people saying that Francis is not the pope are correct. It wouldn't shake my faith in Church teaching one iota.

[@Aksm91ManNavar]

If they say no then im done

[@glennlanham6309]

goodbye. Not in his official teaching, no...In his personal theological understanding (i.e Francis on civil gay unions) yes

[@GreatPlainsFlyTyer]

I’m here for mustache Matt

[@dianneraimondi8382]

The church will follow Christ and appear as dead, conquered by evil.

[@martinospitaletta8198]

Even if Pope Francis will teach heresy you can redefine a declaration as not being ex cathedra. But what use does an infallibility of the pope have if he can teach whatever heresy he wants as long as he is smart enough not to teach it "in a special way" nobody without a Ph.D. in Sacred Divinity and Law and Church Law will EVER understand???😅

[@JanGavlas]

The pope can not teach heresy. Period. Does not matter if the case is proclaimed infallibly or not.

[@pcola4594]

@@JanGavlas You do know that Pope Francis taught in the Philippines that all religions are paths to God right? They are like languages he said, Christianity, Islam, Hindu, Skih, all paths to God…

[@viceroyraydeen1796]

I’m watching 2 intelligent, good men dance around the fact the Bergolio is an evil and vindictive man.

[@professorlogos5459]

The problem here is that Feser has been pretty dishonest about what Francis says and does. Feser’s slander is getting old. That being said, most of Feser’s books are very good.

[@gregoryweaver3670]

If this were to happen, I'd simply expect to see more pretzel logic to rationalize why it is not what it clearly is.

[@tireddad6541]

I believe that John Paul II updated the applicable Canon Law, what to do if it is alleged. Remember Laetitia Amoris? No support for pursuing.

[@diannalaubenberg7532]

One word: millstone.

[@HankNoneYAH]

The great falling away, they make war with the saints, 2nd Thessalonians 2, 2nd Timothy 3 KJV

[@Meteor_pending]

Well, if the Pope messes up big time, the next Pope has to clean it up. Only Popes can check Popes, and all that's left for us to do is to trust God. Edit: Also, he's wrong about capital punishment, very wrong! God can order death, because all life is God's, but we obviously are not God. So the church can perfectly well infallibly teach that no ordinary man can pass a sentence of death. How that would falsify the church is beyond me.

[@mitchellsnider4706]

As a Catholic, if the claims of the papacy were falsified, the answer seems obvious. I would become Orthodox.

[@Magnus_Corvus]

Same. Seems the logical conclusion.

[@Deathbytroll]

It’s the exact answer I came to

[@katholischetheologiegeschi1319]

@@mitchellsnider4706 what kind of orthodox?

[@mitchellsnider4706]

@@katholischetheologiegeschi1319 that's a good question. I'm not sure, to be honest. The Orthodox Church in America tends to have that heavy ethnic element still. It's not uncommon for a Greek Orthodox Church in America to be just as much Greek as it is Orthodox. It makes integrating newcomers who are not ethnically Greek difficult. I explored Orthodoxy before I converted to Catholicism. After a decade of protestantism

[@mousakandah5188]

Orthodoxy still has several problems (even if we assume Catholicism is false)

[@smitrotti]

Prepare for an extrenely rough landing.

[@Iesu-Christi-Servus]

His answer is not satisfying. Catholicism would be invalidated by his principles. The magisterium of Nicholas III contradicted that of John XXII on the use & right of property in the quarrel between the Franciscans. Both used the authority of the keys to judge a decision concerning faith. The Councils of Constance and Basel were doctrinally approved by several popes, and yet, de facto something contrary to their decrees is now being taught everywhere based on the Vatican I interpretation of Pastor Aeternus. His explanation of the death penalty is also lacking. Something I did not realize when it came out is this: Death penalty is a right granted by divine revelation as a prerogative of the temporal power. The Church and the pope, having jurisdiction only in spiritual matters, have no legitimate ground to pose a moral judgment on the death penalty. Francis can express whatever he wants, even with the highest solemn language in support or opposition to it; his infallibility cannot be involved because the death penalty is not part of what the pope, and more wholly the Church, can deliberate on. Reason also why the Church does not have the right to condemn anyone to the death of the body.

[@LL-bl8hd]

I would be interested to hear a discussion between you and Dr. Feser. I don't know much about this topic. I'm curious about your last point. What aspects of morality is the Church not allowed to speak on, in your view? E.g., can they speak on the mortality of abortion?

[@Iesu-Christi-Servus]

@@LL-bl8hd The Church cannot infringe a mere prerogative of the temporal power. Temporal authorities exercise their authority directly from God, who allowed them to punish wrong-doers _by the sword_ (Rom 13: 1-5) This is why the matter of the death penalty exercised by a state is not a moral one - this answers your objection.

[@davidlarsson7555]

​@@Iesu-Christi-ServusBy that flawed reasoning States would be justified in every action they take. Which they clearly are not. The Church has every right to judge the morality of actions of States.

[@Iesu-Christi-Servus]

@@davidlarsson7555 Maybe because you misunderstand the logic underlying it. It is about the separation of powers between the temporal and spiritual. Secular rulers ought to have full impunity - yes, at least it is clear in monarchies. Republics are a special case. They have indeed full impunity from men in every action they take in temporal matters, until Christ returns to judge them at the end of times. Why does it surprises you? Christians do not live for the things of the flesh that will be consumed by fire. We live for the Spirit. Of course, when I say DP is not a moral issue, I meant in the sense that it's not going to get you saved to know the state applies it harshly and loosely with lack of evidence, or has relegated it to extraordinary cases, or totally abolished it. The Church has the jurisdiction Christ has given her to bring the faithful to salvation, no more, no less. And death penalty is not part of that.

[@davidlarsson7555]

@@Iesu-Christi-Servus The Church has the jurisdiction to judge the morality of actions. Even of States. She has done so amply in the history of the Church. And condemned those who dare to claim She does not have that authority.

[@hectorguillermopantalena8700]

Nice picture of the pope You choose ...no agenda here

[@AncientCornelius]

Pope Leo 3rd denied the Holy Spirit proceeding from the father and the son. Stated the nicene creed should not have added the filioque clause.

[@toddparker6807]

A good example of a Pope teaching heresy is for a Pope to publically make a statement and say "All religions lead to God". The Pope has missed the mark here. Not only has he missed the bullseye, but he has completely missed the target. He has moved so far from the truth that he teaches Interfaith as a way and has misrepresented the Gospel. As we know Jesus said in the Gospel of John (14:6 ) - Jesus answered "I am the way, and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me". Mathew 7:13-14 Jesus said “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

[@JanGavlas]

He said nothing wrong. Definitely no heresy. You taking it out of context and twisting it.

[@toddparker6807]

@JanGavlas Hi there, here are some additional scriptures to demonstrate that Pope Francis's statements are incorrect according to what Jesus and his Apostles taught - See Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever. Acts 4:12 Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved. If a Pope is suggesting or saying that you can be saved by or through another religion, then that is false teaching. All religions do not lead to God. Scripture makes this abundantly clear. I understand that you are defending the Pope however before you accuse me of twisting what Pope Francis said please go and read what he said and how he clarified it. The Pope is not immune to making errors like the rest of us. He is human too.

[@TakumaNuva]

​@@toddparker6807correct, the Pope can make errors. He is only protected and infallible in extremely narrow conditions. Francis has not invoked those conditions.

[@Vince-y9s]

I don’t think anyone understands how the magisterium works in the comment section. Atrocious!

[@JanGavlas]

@@TakumaNuva That is not true. Prove it. The pope and the church can not teach any error in their teachings (infallible or not)

[@KellyS_77]

You have a SPAM BOT in your comment section. A really annoying one at that.

[@esoterico7750]

This seems to represent a shift to a more reception EO/medieval version of the magisterium were it can teach errror but only temporarily

[@Wilkins325]

Tsar Nicholas II look works for you, Matt!

[@ReyChurchill]

He already has: he said that all religions lead to God (i.e. all roads lead to Rome 😂)

[@toddvoss52]

I agree with Ed's first example of falsification (which refutes Jordan Cooper's recent claim that papal infallibility is "unfalsifiable"), but don't think his second one is so clear. And I have read his book - when it first came out. I found his case the most persuasive that could be made, but I did not find myself compelled by his arguments. Won't go into it here. But right now it is all hypothetical because the last two Pope's teachings were not "definitive" teachings (i.e taught under the conditions where they are protected by the charism of infallibility). I do give my religious submission of intellect and will to the current teaching even if it is in the prudential realm (which is not entirely clear).

[@ellenlatanzi5536]

Orthodoxy would be the obvious next choice :)

[@AndrewLane-pm2ro]

If it can happen in the Catholic Church, it can happen in an Orthodox Church.

[@JaimeAlvarez-r9u]

from one heretic to the next

[@AndrewLane-pm2ro]

@JaimeAlvarez-r9u Outside of Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, true Christianity does not exist.

[@AndrewLane-pm2ro]

@JaimeAlvarez-r9u Outside Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, true Christianity doesn't exist.

[@tusolusdominus]

Pope could get deposed in this situation. Think about how Fiducia got so much flack and it had no heresies. If the Pope actually said something so heretical that obviously contradicts dogma, I think he’d be deposed by even the most moderate Bishops. Only issue is that we have no set ways to do it on paper and risks of conciliarism can arise. Orthodoxy historically looked to Rome too, and various ecumenical councils speak highly of the Roman see. Hard to make sense of the quotes in a Romanless church.

[@petervan333]

Can the Pope teach heresy? No, he cannot. Proof for that is Denzinger 1683 1792 C1323, which says: "Ecclesia infallibitatem suam exercet sive solemni iudicio sive ordinario magisterio universali", translated it says: "The Church is infallible when declaring solemn pronouncements and also through her ordinary teaching authority". The latter part of this sentence ("....and also through her ordinary teaching authority") is the shocking bomb which debunks all "Pope Francis apologists" in one stroke. Yes Vatican I (1870) formulates the (seemingly strict) conditions for an infallible teaching, but those conditions are actually fulfilled much sooner and much easier than most people think. The Pope must have the intention to teach the christian people a certain religious truth, and the intention to settle this matter once and for all is implied in this intention to teach. So when the Pope teaches something (in the form of a letter, a book or a speech) he is already exercizing his infallible authority. No need to invoke an "ex cathedra" pronouncement. The difference with an "ex cathedra" formula is not the level of infallibility, but the OBLIGATION TO BELIEVE. Both ordinary ("speeches, books, letters") as well as extra-ordinary ("ex cathedra") magisterium are an expression of Papal Infallibility, but only the "ex cathedra" ones are mandatory faith. The Vatican II modernist Church has obscured this truth in order to be able to invoke plausible deniability whenever they planned to go against traditional Catholic Teaching and they did plan to go against it from the moment they convened Vatican II Council. The idea behind the traditional Catholic belief is that the Pope, aided by the Holy Spirit, has a complete and precise understanding of the christian faith and can be trusted to always tell the truth about revealed matters. The entire principle of obedience in the Church rests on this foundation of infallible trustworthiness, that is why Christ Himself guarantees this infallibility (because obedience is so important). The Pope's ordinary magisterium MUST BE in line with all "ex cathedra" pronouncements. If that is not the case, then the Church has a serious problem comparable to the problems she had during the Great Western Schism (1378 - 1417) when the lawfulness of the reigning Pope was subject of discussion.

[@lazerDragonbeam56]

I've heard a comparison of the Pope and the judges that led the Israelites out of captivity. God has put them there to lead us but by no means does that mean they're infallible. Pray for them and remember the good that they do, and follow Christ when they do wrong. God will decide their and our fates

[@slickmechanical]

Except the Church has defined with her authority and the authority if thr Pope that the Pope IS infallible under specific circumstances.

[@Mighty_Jared]

I can think of a few medieval popes who 100% fill this description.

[@TH-yx4io]

@@Mighty_Jared name one

[@Mighty_Jared]

@@TH-yx4io Steven VI, John XII, and Alexander VI come to mind, not counting the wholesale corruption of the Borgian popes.

[@TH-yx4io]

@Mighty_Jared what is the heresy they taught infallibly

[@Mighty_Jared]

@@TH-yx4io lol, I'm not doing the legwork for you, bro. You're gonna have to do a little work yourself.

[@Kal_ell]

@@TH-yx4io pope can hold standing armies for 1

[@Tradley]

Don’t be so hastey to jump ship and abandon the Church, the catechism teaches that there will eventually be an ape of the church that will be in apostasy while the true church will be underground.

[@imimpo9316]

I don’t understand, how the capital punishment is permitted in the scripture?!?! Jesus clearly said “He, who is without sin, cast the first stone”, referring to the practice of execution.

[@chissstardestroyer]

They have in the history of the Church, so absolutely yes they can; and that also disables the dogma of papal infailability. We've absolutely had popes teach heresy as truth, especially when teaching the whole of the church, and worse still: teaching immorality *as* moral; so the idea of the holy spirit protecing his office from error is heretical in and of itself! Basic *Catholic* church history confirms that to a T that not only that but entire councils have taught heresy and mandated it be embraced in and of itself!

[@josiahalexander5697]

Can you cite examples?

[@e.m.8094]

Can someone help me understand why Catholics put the Pope on another level as far as interpreting scripture? Or am I misunderstanding the whole thing? Does he claim to be more knowledgeable about the word of God than biblical scholars and theologians? I'm not trying to be snarky here, I'm asking legitimate questions.

[@TakumaNuva]

No, because this attributes something to the Pope as though he wields some kind of super power when he's merely a sinful human being like you and me. Papal Infallibility is a logical conclusion of God's statement that the Church is the pillar and bulwark of truth. If the Pope, whom all are required to obey **when he declares something ex cathedra** could bind us to something that is false or sinful, then the church would no longer be that pillar and bulwark. As such, Papal Infallibility is an acknowledgement that God, through whatever means necessary, will never allow a Pope to bind the faithful to anything less than the truth, not because the Pope is uber smart, but because God knows whether or not what the Pope is about to say is the truth.

[@alexs.5107]

How do we falsify protestantism?

[@Iesu-Christi-Servus]

By asking them these same questions recommended by the doctors of the Paris University to King Francis I of France to address the emergence of Protestantism within the kingdom: 1) Do you believe that the Church militant founded by Jesus Christ is infallible in matters of faith and morals, and that Peter, and his successors after him, is the head of the church subordinated to Jesus Christ? 2) Are you resolved to obey the Church, embrace its doctrine and submit to its decisions with the docility befitting true children? 3) Do you accept the decisions and decrees of general councils? 4) Do you accept the canons and decrees of the Roman Pontiffs which the Church has received and approved?

[@danielholder7979]

Being a Protestant let me know if you can think of a way!

[@Jamric-gr8gr]

By asking them questions until they have no answer

[@Mark3ABE]

Do you mean “heresy” or “error”? Heresy means to believe in only part of what the Church teaches, refusing to believe all of it. Error means to teach something incorrect, for example, that St. Joseph was the biological father of Jesus. That would simply be unsupportable, since the Gospels record specifically that Joseph and Mary had not had marital relations at any time before Jesus was born. However, to believe in the virgin birth but to refuse to believe that Jesus was the Son of God would be heresy - choosing to believe one teaching of the Church but refusing to believe another. So, when the Pope chose to falsify the Catechism to state, contrary to the teachings of the Sacred Scriptures (and of the Council of Trent) that the death penalty is never permissible, that is simple error. It is to knowingly and deliberately teach what he knows to be false. It is not heresy. The Pope did not say that he did not acknowledge what the Sacred Scriptures and the Council of Trent taught on the subject - he simply taught contrary to the teaching of the Church. He thinks that, as a Jesuit, he is far cleverer than God the Holy Spirit and the Fathers of the Council of Trent and that he has a duty to steer the Faithful away from such old fashioned and unreliable sources. Well, no one has put him right. No Cardinal has pointed out that he is wrong. Almighty God continues to bless him with long life and health, so, possibly, He has ceased to care what the Pope teaches. So, possibly, we should take our lead from Almighty God. If he does not care what the Pope teaches, why should we? Personally, I shall just continue to believe what the Sacred Scriptures and the Council of Trent teach on the death penalty and ignore what the Pope now teaches. If the Pope falsifies the Catechism to reverse any other established teaching of the Church, for example, that sodomy is a mortal sin, then I shall ignore that too. If the Pope acts in such a way as to make what he says a “dead letter” - only his own personal opinion, neither right nor wrong, then we are entitled to act accordingly.

[@bloopboop9320]

Can he teach heresy? He already has. It's not really a question at this point. When it was just a few minor confusing statements then there was wiggle room, but at this point it is really hard to say that Francis has a firm grasp on historical Catholic or Christian doctrines. Pope Francis repeatedly seems to have some sort of Universalist Unitarianism view mixed with Catholicism which is something that would have been considered heretical in any other era except this one where everyone already sort of has a vague universalist sensibility about how people get saved.

[@chissstardestroyer]

Well, the unanimous understanding of the church fathers by that very reliance upon them *is* always in error, and sacred scripture is heretical in numerous areas, in that it contradicts basic reality in and of itself!

[@thescaleofnature5775]

The irony of this is astounding.

[@friendlyolbum]

Is this even a real question?

[@chrisjohnson5640]

I am less concerned with obvious Papal statements of heresy that deviates 180 degrees for doctrine. However, how to protect the Church from the minuscule doctrinal changes that over numerous statements and centuries results in a Church that has deviated from the first century Church and doctrine. We seem to declare such changes over time as revelatory, but how do we know? Paul warns about this in 2 Cor 11 to those who were sincere and pure in their devotion to Christ. We know that Satan misled Peter in Matt 16. And even entered into Judas in Luke 22. The presentation was interesting and thought provoking; even in this time of doctrinal differences in Rome.

[@gregorybarrett4998]

Hi, Chris. Thanks for your comment. This is a legitimate concern. The answer is found in the distinction between a living organism and an inorganic structure. With an inorganic structure, any change is to be presumed to be evidence of corruption or decay, while allowing the possibility of an addition. With a living organism, on the other hand, the failure to find change is to be presumed to be evidence of corruption or decay, while the presence of change calls for further assessment. The basis of the assessment is whether the change corresponds with suitable development according to the nature of the organism, or an interference with or deviation from such development. This in turn raises the question of what the nature of the organism is. If we know the nature of the organism, then we can have some idea of whether suitable changes are occurring, or at least that changes which do occur can be identified as being in correspondence with its nature. The Church has been variously described, sometimes organically and sometimes inorganically, and, startlingly, sometimes as both. From this we infer that some things in the Church do not and cannot change, while others must change in order for it to remain itself. This was recognized from the beginning and mentioned by Vincent of Lerins. The method of analysis was examined by John Henry Newman to guide himself in discerning the true Church. He subsequently published this work as An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine. Anyone can be misled, and so our faith is not in man, but in God who promises His aid and support to man, also working through others. The Catholic doctrines of infallibility and indefectibility do not express faith in the human qualities of particular individuals, but rather in the power of God to work in and through the means, institutions, and structures that He Himself has established to provide His grace and blessing to His people.

[@vazgl100]

Catholicism will still continue! All this proves is that all including the Pope have sinned and come short of the glory of God! Judas was handpicked by Jesus himself to be an apostle but Judas erred and betrayed Jesus. Does this mean we are not to trust and believe the rest of the apostles? Of course not! 😁

[@notsparctacus]

No.

[@russelbangot3036]

Mr. Matt, Would you be so kind to invite a Sedevacantist in your show like Bp Sanborn, Mario Derksen, Steve Sperray, or Bro Peter Dimond and talk about the same issue😊

[@alisterrebelo9013]

Are you asking, with a straight face, for a loyal Catholic to invite schismatics onto their platform?

[@dianneraimondi8382]

He denied the right of capitol punishment,which in scripture. This is heresy\\he put it in the acta apostolic. Don't agree. Everytim e he opens his mouth he falsifies catholicism.

[@JanGavlas]

In the scripture is so many things which are … abandoned. He can not teach heresy. Fill your education.

[@dianneraimondi8382]

@@JanGavlas There's nothing that that church has declared infallible that are abandoned. Scripture is infallible. All dogma's of the church declared by pope or council are infallible. GET a catechism. Your knowledge of the faith is pathetic!

[@JanGavlas]

@@dianneraimondi8382 Yea I agree with your second post so what is the point? I did not agree with your first post that the Pope falsifies catholicism and teach any heresy.

[@PursuingGrace]

Anyone defending Bergoglio agrees with him calling our Lord a liar. They all agree the gates of hell have prevailed. This is a cowardly stance to take.

[@richard714620]

You are arguing he was never a pope. See Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio, Quo Primum, Pius XII VAS. Vigano on popes since death of Pius XII.

[@billyg898]

If Catholicism was disproven, I think Id probably still believe Jesus rose from the dead, but I'd doubt the inerrancy of scripture, the canon of scripture, the reliability of the church fathers, almost every doctrine, the nicene creed, the great commission, etc. Because all of that collapses with it. I wouldnt become Protestant and suddenly believe in sola fide and sola scriptura for the exact same reasons I reject those right now (that they arent taught by scripture or tradition), but since even scripture and tradition are doubted, there is even more reason to reject them. Protestantism isnt the default. Id probably live my life following natural law, worshipping God, but unclear as to what Jesus' message was or what the ressurection meant. Maybe Id figure some thigs out. But, as Feser says, Catholicism wont be disproven so this is just pure speculation.

[@jacobsladderofficial]

This highlights a key issue I have with Catholic epistemology. In most denominations, discovering inconsistencies often leads to a deeper pursuit of truth, sometimes even closer to the heart of Christianity. However, with Catholicism, the dialogue often suggests that rejecting the Church’s authority undermines belief in Christianity as a whole. This all-or-nothing approach ignores the “middle ways” that still affirm core Christian doctrines. For instance, as an Anglican in the Reformed Episcopal Church (reformed in terms of Catholic correction, not Calvinism), I see strong historical reasons to trust the foundations of our faith. The authenticity of the Apostolic letters-Paul, Peter, and John-is well-supported, as are early writings like those of Clement, Ignatius, and the Didache. Peter even acknowledges Paul’s letters as scripture (2 Peter 3:16). If we accept the Old Testament as divinely inspired, why not these texts, given their historical and Apostolic origins? A fallible Church does not preclude its trustworthiness. It’s about weighing the logical consistency of scripture and tradition. The Catholic view sometimes veers close to postmodernism by implying we cannot know truth without the magisterium. But if God gave us reason, as philosophers like Plato and Aristotle affirm, it’s entirely reasonable to find truth in scripture and tradition-even if the magisterium errs by declaring itself infallible.

[@Deathbytroll]

Church operated for 2000 years without the heresy of papism to guide it. Disproving it doesn’t disprove the True Church

[@billyg898]

@@jacobsladderofficial Thank you for the reply. Sorry, my reply here is long unfortunately. I never said you can't reason to general conclusions, like that St Peter or St Paul actually wrote their letters. That's fine. But, no amount of historical and textual analysis will get you to the conclusion that these letters are inerrant and inspired, or even that everything in them perfectly relays the teachings of Christ. Nor will it explain why, for instance, very early letters in Church History, like 1st Clement, are not inspired. I'm sure St Peter and St Paul, as well as the other inspired authors, wrote more than what is in scripture, but which were not inspired. But, how to distinguish this? Not to mention that you might say a letter is authentic, but it doesn't mean that every word has been faithfully copied, that there weren't additions, etc. For example, the account of the woman caught in adultery in John 7 and 8 are not in the earliest manuscripts and it's not definitively clear, from a purely textual point of view, whether it was originally there at all. Us Catholics don't have to worry so much about whether someone added to John's words or not. But, those appealing to sola scriptura have to. You can also use various reasoning methods to come to the conclusion that the early Church, or even later also, faithfully kept and clarified *some* of the teachings of Jesus. But you can't reason to the conclusion that they got all of them correct, that the Tradition has the protection and guidance of the Holy Spirit, etc. That's the problem that Protestantism has. That is why Protestantism fails from the get go. That isn't even mentioning that, as even Protestant scholar admit, Protestant doctrines like sola fide are literally taught NOWHERE in the Church Tradition (both uppercase T Tradition and lowercase t). It's a complete novelty of the 1500s that no one ever taught prior. I'd argue that Protestantism requires a very inconsistent attitude toward Tradition. Protestants often pick and choose what to claim is trustworthy Tradition guided by the Holy Spirit, and what isn't. They do this by measuring it against Scripture. But how do they know what is Scripture? They have to trust that the Tradition got it right. But, also, they are only claiming to be able to trust the Tradition is guided by the Holy Spirit because Scripture says so. Obviously, this is simply viciously circular reasoning. Here is just one example: The doctrine of Original Sin. It's never explicitly laid down in scripture in black and white. A variety of views existed in the early Church, it being just one of many, and, when St Augustine clarified it in the 4th-5th century (so getting pretty late there), it was controversial. Even if you say it is implicit and can be drawn out of scripture (which I agree), others clearly drew other conclusions out of scripture. But, say we go further and conclude that it's the answer that best fits with scripture, that implies that you already trust that the scriptures are, in fact, inerrant and inspired. Clearly many in the early church didn't see it. The Jews didn't see it. Because it's not explicit in scripture, you can't even make the argument that, if it were false, we would have writings from the Apostles and other leaders in the 1st century condemning it because, it's possible they didn't even see it there at all and so they weren't even being careful to look for it. No council agreed about it until the 5th century, and you don't think those councils are infallible anyway. Another example is Wisdom 2:12-20. This is arguably foretelling Jesus. It couldn't do that unless it is inspired, yet the vast majority of Protestants have never even read it because it's not in your bibles. Many who have read it probably don't spend much time even properly reading it because they've already concluded that it's not scripture. Why think it isn't? Many Protestants believe the myth that the apocrypha were added by the Council of Trent, so they simply trust that their Protestant tradition simply got it right. Why think your tradition got it right? Some more informed Protestants make a case from a single verse by Paul, arguments about the language it is written in, etc. But none of this can give you good certainty to build your necessary doctrines on. Sorry this is long, and more could be said, but this is simply to explain why so much collapses if you don't have an infallible teaching authority. That is also why I'd say that Protestantism isn't even in consideration. If there is no infallible teaching authority, each of us may use our reason to do our best to figure out what Jesus' resurrection meant, what Jesus may have taught, what the early Church may have gotten right or wrong, what may be scripture and what isn't, etc but that can only get you so far. I'd say we would be in a very fragile position to rest our very salvation on.

[@pigetstuck]

It would only falsify one aspect of Catholicism... not the whole thing.

[@AA-pu8zf]

Thats the thing though.. you'll come to understand its either 100% entirely correct or none of it is.

[@pigetstuck]

@@AA-pu8zf Why does it have to be all or nothing?

[@AA-pu8zf]

@@pigetstuck Something like; God's church can't dogmatically teach an error and if you find a singular place where it does; that church is not of God. You immediately teleport across the impenetrable chasm of moral relativism. You can't discern fact from opinion from that entity anymore; the hierarchy of the church collapses and there is now no higher authority to appeal to other than yourself. It would allow for you to disagree with a teaching and still believe you are in a state of grace because the possibility exists that the church just got that part wrong and you reasoned better. Once you cross that bridge our best hope looks Nietzschean.

[@pigetstuck]

@@AA-pu8zf Nah.... Israel was God's people and fell into major error, but was still his people. We discern fact from error all the time in fallible sources/institutions. The Orthodox church teaches some major errors, but they aren't completely off the rails... same with the protestants.

[@AA-pu8zf]

@@pigetstuck That view would work if the Church did't dogmatically condemn religious indifferentism

[@hectorguillermopantalena8700]

Tonsura... incluso hubo un documento que decía que era apostólico...hasta que no...

[@ethanmiller5487]

The pope is not the church. What the pope teaches doesn't have to be true, but what the church teaches can never be true. God controls the church. The pope only controls his own mouth. Ole Peter, the rock on which the church is built, got it wrong about his own dedication to the Lord. All written down by the chruch fathers. What makes you think the next ones won't get things wrong and why?

[@JanGavlas]

Wrong. The church can not exists without the Pope. That means the Pope with the bishops can not teach what they want but only what God wants.

[@Funsoul8]

Father Ripperger knows the truths about the church and the catholic doctrines..He should be interviewed on your show ..

[@alisterrebelo9013]

Don't hold me to this, my memory might be failing me on this, I recall Matt Fradd saying in the past that Fr. Ripperger has declined, for reasons unknown.

[@dianneraimondi8382]

Ed is a good philosopher /that it. Explaining the crisis in. the church I'll listen to Fr ripperger. He's kinda clueless!

[@adam7402]

This question comes up from time to time. Bare in mind, this is the exact situation for many groups that are not Catholic. I think that bona-fide Catholicism idolizes Mary - heresy.

[@diamondlou1]

Nope. Wrong. Sorry for your misunderstanding of Catholicism. Please read the Catechism.

[@adam7402]

@@diamondlou1 Actually I have read the Catholic categoism and while it may Claim that catholics do not worship Mary the practices it supports suggests otherwise.

[@gladtrad]

Given that to Protestants, "worship" has been impoverished to such a level that singing songs to honor someone qualifies as such, I'm not surprised. The Catholic understanding of worship involves more than just songs or kneeling. Just look at the Eucharist and the liturgy that surrounds it. Also, it's "bear", not "bare".

[@adam7402]

@@gladtrad My argument is that Catholics are the ones who don't understand what worship actually is. It is the act of raising something to a superhuman or deified state. That's exactly want Catholics do with Mary, the Pope, and their clergy. They give them a charism of being more than just human.

[@gladtrad]

@adam7402 and that's a mistaken assessment of what we do. We don't claim they have such charisms of their own right, or by their own nature, which is a prerequisite to deify someone (since deifying means taking their nature to be divine). No, all we're saying is that they have very *limited* and *specific* charisms entirely due to divine grace bestowed upon them. To claim someone was without sin thanks to God's mercy and not to their nature is hardly the same as making them divine. So is the claim that someone cannot err thanks to divine help when speaking on this and that subject and in full use of his authority as teacher. These are very limited, modest claims, minuscule in comparison to what being divine actually means (all the 'omni' claims, for example). It's not at all different from claiming that Elijah had the charisma of prophecy. Do you Protestants believe he did? Do you think it was due to his nature, or to divine grace? Are you therefore worshipping by recognizing his superhuman ability of prophesying?

[@ChuckyLarms]

I mean he’s already saying there’s other ways to God outside of Jesus

[@videonmode8649]

All roads lead to Rome.

[@Robert-r4s4c]

For those who do not know Christ or his Gospel there are other ways to God.. Being a Christian is not an automatic ticket to heaven.

[@cam_rock]

@@Robert-r4s4c uhhhhhh

[@andrewclarke3044]

Here’s the thing that was an off the cuff remark that has 0 magisterial authority. The claims of Vat I are simply that when defining a “De Fide” dogma. Ie a is of faith and moral, and to be held by the universal church: it is infallibile.

[@hyeminkwun9523]

From Our Lord's 9/5/2015 message to Luz de Maria: "Anyone, who calls himself a Catholic, but is a heretic, is a server of the Antichrist."

[@BruteForce.]

after Any proclaimed Catholic dogma and you cant see heresy or refuse to accept error makes you wrong!

[@jd3jefferson556]

If Pope Francis taught to the universal Church an obvious heresy. Then Christianity is false, and we are lost to our sins. No matter the denomination

[@erikmiller2514]

Jd3jefferson, Papal heresy doesn’t disprove Christianity, it rather proves that the claims of V1 are false.

[@jd3jefferson556]

@erikmiller2514 which would disprove Christianity, an ecumenical council can't teach error if Jesus really is God and the Holy Spirit teaches all truth. The Catholic Church and Christianity as Christianity hinges on papal infallibility and is united by the Bishop of Rome.

[@BrotherLawrence-BVM]

So when Peter was preaching that Christians had to be circumcised, Christianity was proven false way back then?? That’s a craaaazy stance to take man.

[@ItsThatGuy1989]

Or it simply means the papacy is false.

[@Diallelus]

No it just means Catholicism is false.

[@Unknown-hb3id]

Yes, very much so. It’s happened historically even if you don’t believe it’s happening today

[@CDUTT360]

"If Catholicism starts to say that my book is wrong then Catholicism is wrong." Sorry, that is ludacris. I see what he is saying but this example is just problematic. I obvious don't agree with his reading on Scripture and Church history on this matter, which is why his argument for this example is Ludacris.

[@caterinadc5567]

This seems an uncharitable characterization of his position. He didn't write a book and then form his opinion about the premises of Catholicism based on that book; he formed his opinion about the premises of Catholicism then wrote a book. I'm an adult convert who has always agreed that there are obvious ways the Catholic Church could falsify itself, and if it did even one of them then it would by definition disprove Catholicism, and I would have to cease to be Catholic. My faith and hope, the investment I've made with my mortal life and eternal soul, is on the side of Catholicism being true. But my starting position was seeking the truth; God is Truth Himself. _If_ Catholicism falsified itself by an intrinsic contradiction, Catholicism would be definition have proved itself untrue and my obligation to God would be to seek Him elsewhere. The nuance is in discerning the difference between apparent contradictions and real contradictions. But personally, I would take seriously the examples Dr. Feser raises, because they do seem truth-oriented to me. They spontaneously occur to many people who are similarly truth-oriented. The Catholic Church does make serious empirical truth claims, including truth claims about her divine protection to teach truth without error. If a true error were admitted (including admitted by internal contradiction of a past declared truth, even if claiming with words today that there is no admission of error), this would be to admit to lacking the divine protection to teach without error, and her authority to teach anything at all would crumble. We would have no more reason to trust the about-face than the original-face. The Christian world would disintegrate into absolute protestantism, with each individual arriving at their own conclusion about each individual topic, and only associating with other Christians by temporary agreement (eventually disintegrated again when they find their inevitable new points of disagreement). The Church is either true or she isn't. I'm betting my life that she's true. And I make this bet knowing just how simple a 'falsification' would be, placing my trust in God that it is only through His miracles that no such falsification has happened in the last two thousand years, and no such falsification ever will.

[@CDUTT360]

@@caterinadc5567 Obvious not, but that how it comes off to someone who thinks his argument for capital punishment is bad.

[@MrTzarBomb]

The things people will consider before sedevacantism or an invalid conclave is astounding.

[@TakumaNuva]

Because sedevacantism is illogical and internally inconsistent. It suffers the exact same pitfalls that Protestantism does in that it makes the individual the final arbiter of truth rather than the Church.

[@MrTzarBomb]

@@TakumaNuva it’s clear you have no idea what you’re talking about, but regardless… Ironic complaint considering you guys gaslight others over blatant heresies from Francis.

[@TakumaNuva]

@MrTzarBomb I was born and raised sedevacantist, not leaving until I was nigh 30 years old. I've spent thousands of hours studying documents, analyzing lectures, reading letters between Lefebvre and priests, interviewing sedevacantist clergy, watching debates, reading sources cited, researching Church history... I would posit I have *some* idea what I'm talking about.

[@MrTzarBomb]

@@TakumaNuva based on your previous post, you’re either lying or the worst sede (pirate) I’ve ever heard of

[@jmoreirafcp]

That's like asking if a pig can bark. You should have paid attention to Brother Dimond.

[@OdetteShepard]

this is good, but if you haven’t read Magnetic Aura by Takeshi Mizuki, you’re only seeing part of the picture

[@stevecalovich3682]

God pulled the plug on the Roman Church in 1960. For sixty-five years, everyone has accepted an imposter church. That's the bizarre problem.

[@CORNELIUSLloyd-s6g]

funny how people spend so much time on this stuff but ignore books like Magnetic Aura by Takeshi Mizuki that actually explain what’s going on

[@justinpickup603]

“What do you do?” We figured it out in the 1500s. See you soon. There is no way to reverse this Papacy with him having the cardinal majority.

[@alisterrebelo9013]

They figured out how to deform the Church in the 1500s. Every claim by Protestants against Catholics generally takes a low view of God's omnipotence. In this case, the idea that any Pope selecting cardinals somehow means that college of cardinals will select someone just like the previous Pope. As Dr Feser said, if the Church is starting to go off the rails, a future Pope will correct it. The Holy Spirit Himself was selecting the elders in Acts 20:28, and He's doing so even today. You've doubted that, but I don't.

[@richardowen4616]

Isn't Dr Feser mixing up infalability and impeccability? Can't the Pope speak ex Cathedra but in error and even heretical error (albeit the error will be binding doctrine until reversed)? I assume he is not due to his expertise and my confusion, but what is the explanation?

[@CatholicDays]

He can’t bind the entire to church to a heresy.

[@MissPhoenix713]

This guy is NOT helpful

[@tyhardee]

Saint Peter was recognized by Jesus for declaring him to be the Christ and then immediately admonished for being of satan. The Roman Catholic Church may shares a type of metaphorical symmetry with Peter. Prophetic imagery may indicate that The Roman Catholic Church will fall away into satanic deception, then deny Christ, and finally repent after Jesus returns. These types of fractal patterns exist throughout scripture and it isn’t hard to see the possibility of that one playing out.

[@user-mj4nc1lg4h]

agreed

[@happydog2524]

The Ordinary Magisterium has the same teaching authority as the Extraordinary Magisterium. Bergoglio has repeatedly taught heresy and therefore cannot be the pope

[@Deathbytroll]

More likely theory. Catholicism is a false church

[@CatholicDays]

This is wrong, the extraordinary is infallible and the ordinary fallible.

[@GiantsMets7760]

I believe in Christ's words that the gates of hell shall not prevail over the Church. So, hypothetically, if the pope were to teach heresy, I would default to Christ's words and not acknowledge the newly taught heresy as legit. I would treat that pope and his false claims as not being part of the True Catholic Church.

[@jd3jefferson556]

It falsifies Catholicism, the man is correct

[@TakumaNuva]

Congratulations, you've invented protestantism.

[@Deathbytroll]

The problem is that papism is the Catholic Church so if the Pope taught heresy it would invalidate it as the True Church and that leaves the Orthodox as the only consideration

[@jd3jefferson556]

@Deathbytroll no atheism and agnostic is still an option as Christianity is disproven if the Pope teaches heresy. He has never and will never though, so this, in fact, bolsters the claims of Christianity. The Holy Spirit truly protects the Chair of St Peter. EO didn't spread the Gospel to all corners of the world. Some EO churches allow for divorce and remarriage, and they partaking in Communion. Denying Our Ladys Immaculate Conception. Are 3 deal breakers for me personally when it comes to the EO.

[@GiantsMets7760]

@Deathbytroll but the Good news is that Christ already made the promise that the Church won't do this....which means the Catholic Church is still the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Orthodoxy is indeed part of Apostolic succession but obviously in schism. They will reunite before the return of Christ.

[@derekdavis3004]

Papal infallibility is not Biblical. The only verses that even come close require enormous leaps in logic and a perverting of God's Word. If it is not justified by the Word of God then it must be justified by tradition. But, how do we know if traditions are good unless they match up with Scripture? I am so sorry but the Catholic way is a man-made, unbiblical way. It leads to half measures and a lukewarm belief that is of no use to our Lord Jesus.

[@justamannn8674]

That’s why we have the Bible. The tradition of the catholic church is that It (itself) is the ultimate authority. Not scripture. Therein is the problem with the entire issue. A low view of Gods word.

[@markcreemore5879]

Listening to this I thank God I left Catholicism behind me and became a Noahide.

[@DIEGOZambrano-o1h]

most people stay stuck because they avoid books like Magnetic Aura by Takeshi Mizuki, which actually show you how to break through

[@jeffreyrodrigoecheverria2613]

@@DIEGOZambrano-o1h why are you promoting new age filth?

[@nonainai]

Catholicism is Erroneous. A doctrine that adds to the Gospel, It was only a matter of time, a real representative which Francis is, of the Catholic doctrine came to Power. Jesus will Judge his house first.

[@CatholicDays]

The entire early church was Catholic. They don’t add anything to the gospel.

[@nonainai]

@@CatholicDays No It Wasn't, that's what you're Told, The individual you call the Pope based on Historical Precedents is just the "Bishop of Rome"