I try to make it more simple. You said Pope is infallible in doctrine.Mean Pope never wrong in doctrine. am I correct?
Okay, I think I know what you mean now. To try and make it more simplified for you, lets look at what Papal Infallibility is not.
1. Infallibility does not mean that a pope is incapable of sin: --All popes are human and therefore sinners.
2. Infallibility does not mean that the pope is inspired: ---- Papal infallibility does not involve any special revelation from God. A pope learns about his faith in the same way that anyone else does – he studies.
3.Infallibility cannot be used to change existing doctrines or proclaim new ones: ---- It can only be used to confirm or clarify what has always been taught. The teachings of Christ cannot change. As the Scripture says, "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever" (Hebrews 13:8).
4. Infallibility does not mean that a pope cannot err when he speaks as a private teacher: ---As a man he is fallible and capable of error.
5. Infallibility does not guarantee that a pope will officially teach anything: However, when he does teach he is protected. If he decides to teach the truth, the Holy Spirit allows it. If he decides to teach error, either knowingly or unknowingly, the Holy Spirit will stop him.
Infallibility is not something that endows a pope with divine powers, but rather it is a gift of the Holy Spirit that protects the Church from the human frailties of a pope.
Would you agree all Christians believe that God used men infallibly in writing Scripture? Why then is it so hard to believe that He would work through men to protect it from corruption? Surely such a protection was implied when Jesus said to His disciples, "He who hears you hears me" (Luke 10:16).
Keep in mind Jack, three conditions must be met in order for a pronouncement to be considered infallible:
1. The pope must speak ex cathedra (from the Chair of Peter) in his official capacity.
2. The decision must be binding on the whole Church.
3. It must be on a matter of faith or morals.
The first two conditions can be reasonably deduced from Matthew 16:19: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." The acts of binding and loosing in this context would by necessity be something more than casual remarks. The previous verse begins with Jesus saying, "You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church" (16:18). Thus the acts of binding or loosing would have to be official and meant for the whole Church.
The third condition stems from the obvious fact that Christian teaching is primarily a matter of faith and morals. Christianity's main objectives have always been getting people to heaven (faith) and teaching them how to live here on earth (morals).
Infallibility is also extended to the college of bishops when they, as a body, teach something in union with the pope. Collegial authority is usually exercised in an ecumenical council just as it was at the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15:1-29).
Upon leaving the earth Jesus' final command to His apostles was to make disciples of all nations,
"teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age" (Matthew 28:20). Are we to believe that Jesus left us no means of knowing exactly what He commanded? That would make His parting statement nonsense. The Catholic Church believes the Bible when it teaches that:
1. Jesus requires that we obey all that He commanded (Matthew 28:20).
2. Jesus gives us the grace to obey all that He commanded (Philippians 4:13).
3. Jesus provides us a means of knowing what He commanded (Matthew 16:15-19).
Jack123, even the early Christian writers bear witness to the Church's infallibility. Cyprian declares: "If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4, 251 AD). Irenaeus writes: "Where the charismata of the Lord are given, there must we seek the truth, with those to whom belongs the ecclesiastical succession from the Apostles, and the unadulterated and incorruptible word. It is they who …are the guardians of our faith…and securely expound the Scriptures to us" (Against Heresies 4:26:5, 180-199 AD).
Ironically Jack 123, many individuals who oppose the doctrine of papal infallibility claim to receive special revelations from God. Most believe that they can privately interpret Scripture in direct violation of 2 Peter 1:20. They characterize the doctrine of papal infallibility as arrogant, while claiming for themselves authority that goes far beyond it. And what is the fruit of their claims? Thousands of denominations all claiming the Bible as their authority and yet all disagreeing on what it teaches. To make matters worse, many of their teachings change from time to time. Those who object to the doctrine of papal infallibility are the greatest proof of its need.
An honest examination of the evidence can only lead to one conclusion: That Jesus Christ established an infallible Church. Scripture teaches it, logic demands it, and history confirms it.
Now this is the question
to my knowledge, Before 1964 Catholic believe there isn't salvation outside Roman catholic church. Am I correct?
Then there is another doctrine in Lumen Gentium II/16 that there is salvation in Muslim.
These 2 oppose each other isn't it
Since it is getting late Jack 123, I will address these other two issues at a later date.
Pax Christi
"from henceforth, all generations shall call me Blessed." Luke 1:48