markd

I know I've heard the idea, but am trying to convince someone, and haven't turned up search results...

Is there a RCC doctrine that spells out that Catholics "should" believe the Pope converses w/God??

I got the text about being the Vicar of Christ, but other sources/links would be great.

The Inquisitor

Well, the Pope no more speaks "directly" with God than any other person. But through the position he holds as the "Vicar of Christ" he is allowed to teach what is the "true" interpretation of doctrine, and when several criteria are met, affirm a teaching as infallible... Or so is my understanding, as an ex-Catholic.

It really isn't overly wacky.

Or maybe I'm not understanding what your question is...

Californian

Another former Catholic here. My understanding is that God dictates His desires to the Pope on matters of faith and morals which are then declared in Encyclicals. Inquisitions, crusades and other untidy pieces of Church history are then chalked up to 'bad popes', not messages from God. But bad popes encyclicals are still considered the Word of God. Got that?

That's how I perceived it anyway.

Justin Z

Huh. Nothin' like the All-Powerful God of the Creation and Everything Else that has Ever Existed being forced to pander to some "bad pope" with 16 illegitimate children who killed thousands during his papacy (for example).

~Justin

The Inquisitor

Well, I certainly am not going to defend the actions of the RCC... but we have to atleast give Catholics benefit of the doubt, and not put words in their doctrinal mouths, and claim certain teachings or actions by popes 'infallible' when Catholics themselves do not even claim this.

Ex Cathedra has been used extremely infrequently... so it is fair enough for a Catholic to say that a Pope SHOULD behave morally, but immoral behavior doesn't draw into question the power of the divine office he holds... it just draws into question whether the Catholic Church has an morally evident 'fruits'.

markd

Thanks, guys. I perceived it the same way Californian did. And, using the definition of Vicar, that is what is understood by me. If the RCC uses the term, then they had better be prepared to defend the definition, in my book. I'm not going to bash the RCC either (at least in this thread ). Thanks again.

Berthold

The infallibility dogma is relatively young (19th century) and restricted to ex cathedra statements, which require a certain amount of formal fuss. So, I think there is not really a problem with predecessors like Alexander VI.

Chili

Another Catholic here, who has never heard a pope say "God spoke to me" while you hear this often in protestant circles . . . especially when a humdinger of a problem is to be solved or evaluated.

Yes I did get that, but we have not yet decided if crusades and Inquisitions were bad. I, for one, think that Hitler should have been dragged before the Inquisitor but freedom of religion prevented that. Do you think Bush should be next? . . . or are Catholics still the cause of war these days?

Californian

Infallibility of the pope was invented in 1870. I won't debate it with you. I was burping what I was told in high school.

The crusades were bad. The holy knights killed men women and children in Jerusalem as their first routine, and ended with killing Cathar men, women and children in So. France as their last. Just before that noble venture, they sacked Constantinople, killing, raping and destroying property. All these magnificent deeds were done under the popes' orders.

I defy you to spin the Inquisition into anything other than the evil it was.

The rest of your post is silly.