Christian Ouroboros: The Great Paradox of Original Sin & Infallibility

 The Ouroboros is the symbol of a snake eating its own tail. This symbol also captures the great paradox of original sin and infallibility, for the former was caused by seeking the latter.   

For Christians, the "old covenant" was one that had been broken by the disobedience of Adam and Eve. In truth, however, that story is but an allegory of the story of King David, who the Jews had always understood to be the one who actually broke the "old covenant," which was established with Moses on Mount Sinai.  When David claimed the throne of Israel and Judah for himself, he thus broke the First Commandment: 'You shall have no other God's before me." To become a King, as all ancient people understood at that time, was to "become like God," for Kings were the authors of the law, and thus the arbiters of "right and wrong." 

Adam & Eve are believed to have "disobeyed" God by eating the forbidden fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. They were lured by the serpent (ironically enough) in that tree to "believe" they would, by eating that fruit, "become like God, knowing right from wrong." What this means, basically, is that they would know everything (how else could they know ultimate right and ultimate wrong?), and by knowing everything, they could also therefore be both "inerrant" and "infallible" in such God-like "knowledge." But the only positions that have ever bestowed such god-like "power" on an individual, is the throne of a king.

Accepting that the biblical authors were "inerrant" in transcribing everything God wanted them to convey to humanity - which is quite possibly the worst means by which anyone has ever tried to convey any ideas -  just happens to be the very thing that Christians have to "believe" in order to accept the legitimacy and authority of both their bible and their pope.  The biblical authors, in other words, had to possess the very "knowledge," at least while they were writing the bible anyway, that Adam & Eve were punished for pursuing. 

Thus, for Catholics to "believe" their pope can be "infallible" whenever he speaks officially for the Catholic Church on questions of "faith and morals" - which are categories that could be construed to cover almost everything - they have to likewise "believe" that the papal office allows any given pope to "become like God, knowing right from wrong," at least for as long as they hold that papal office, or whenever they speak "ex cathedra" (i.e, with the full authority of the Church and the papal office).  The papacy, in other words, gives to the pope the very "knowledge of good and evil" that Adam and Eve are said to have been seeking when they committed the "original sin" that cursed humanity ever after, and for which the Catholic Church claims to offer the only earthly cure through its "sacraments."

Christians likewise rely on this very same "belief" when they conclude not only that the authors of their Bible were necessarily as inerrant in transcribing the "word of God" as the pope is "infallible" in speaking ex cathedra, but that all of the countless number of people who transcribed that text throughout the years, were likewise "inerrant" in their transcriptions as well, at least for as long as they were essentially possessed by the holy spirit for the purpose of writing and transcribing.

So where does this papal claim of "infallibility" necessarily come from?

When Augustus became emperor of Rome, he appointed himself Pontifex Maximus. Pointifix Maximus, as described on Wikipedia, is Latin for "greatest priest," and was the name for the position of the chief high priest of the College of Pontiffs (Collegium Pontifcum) in ancient Rome.The word "pontifex" and its derivative "pontiff" later became terms used for Christian bishops, including the Bishop of Rome^, and the title of "Pontifex Maximus" was applied within the Catholic Church to the Pope as its chief bishop and appears on buildings, monuments and coins of popes of Renaissance and modern times."

This was the most important position in the ancient Roman religion, open only to patricians until 254 BC, when a plebeian first occupied this post. A distinctly religious office under the early Roman Republic, it gradually became politicized until, beginning with Augustus, it was subsumed into the Imperial office.

Laws issued by the Caesars of Rome were necessarily considered "infallible," and with the uniting of Church and state by Augustus, the same became true of any religious decree. When Constantine eventually made Christianity the official religion of Rome, then, all of the political powers of Rome imbued the office of the papacy with similar "infallibility." We even see this is a coin of the Vatican state which says this about Pope Pius VI: Pius Sextus Pontifex Maximus.

We saw an example of this when Louie XIV declared "I am the state!" claiming that he ruled by  "divine right," that there were no independent powers outside of him, and that he was unrestrained by law, nobles or parliaments. We also saw how, when Alexander the Great began to loose his marbles, he started running around proclaiming himself to be God.

The popes were not bold enough to so openly flout the First Commandment, as King David had done, until 1074, when Pope Gregory VII declared that the Catholic Church was "infallible"  because it was given to him by God's inspiration. Like a true despotic emperor, he went on to void all priestly marriages (so much for the "sacrament of marriage") at what was called "The Fastsynod," which allowed him (or as he claimed, the church) to take possession of everything the children of those married priests would have otherwise inherited by birth.

In 1302 Pope Boniface in Unam Sanctam, a letter to the Catholic Church, out did the lust for power that seduced King David when he wrote: "Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."

Pope Leo XIII would likewise claim that the Roman Catholic Church and the papacy more specifically, held "upon this earth the place of God Almighty.." and that "the supreme teacher in the Church is the Roman Pontiff. Union of minds, therefore, requires, together with a perfect accord in the one faith, complete submission and obedience of will to the Church and to the Roman Pontiff, as to God Himself."(The full text of which can be found here)

 In 1517, Pope Julius claimed that the pope was infallible in response to Martin Luther challenging the sale of indulgences, which were being sold as a magical exoneration of sins to pay for the building of St. Peter's in Rome and to pay off the loan that Albrecht of Brandenburg had procured from the giant Fugger Bank for the purchasing of his highly sought after position as the bishop of Mainz.

In 1864, Pope Pius issued Quanta Cura, and Syllabus of Errors, including questions about whether the pope was bestowed with the divine power of infallibility. In 1865, on July 13, this question was voted on, with 451 voting yes, 88 no, and 62 who said yes but with reservations. Thus through a democratic act, the papacy became an absolute authoritarian.

In his book, Crossing the Threshold of Hope (New York: Alfred A. Knoff. 1995),.Pope John Paul II even wrote that names like "Holy Father" are applicable to the Pope, even though calling him that is counter to the Gospel:    Have no fear when people call me the "Vicar of Christ," when they say to me "Holy Father," or "Your Holiness," or use titles similar to these, which seem even inimical to the Gospel." (page 6.)

In  Vita Consecrata, John Paul II also gave his ascent to calling the Pope "Lord" and "Christ on earth" stating:

 In founders and foundresses we see a constant and lively sense of the Church, which they manifest by their full participation in all aspects of the Church's life, and in their ready obedience to the Bishops and especially to the Roman Pontiff. (emphasis added) Against this background of love towards Holy Church, "the pillar and bulwark of the truth" (1 Tim 3:15), we readily understand the devotion of Saint Francis of Assisi for "the Lord Pope",(like Lord Vader?) the daughterly outspokenness of Saint Catherine of Siena towards the one whom she called "sweet Christ on earth", the apostolic obedience and the sentire cum Ecclesia of Saint Ignatius Loyola,and the joyful profession of faith made by Saint Teresa of Avila: "I am a daughter of the Church".

What is truly baffling about all of this,at least  from the perspective of anyone who is not a Catholic, is how Catholics will point out that whenever such statements are uttered by the likes of Charles Manson, David Koresh or Jim Jones, it is clear evidence that such people are either lunatics, or are simply "false prophets" who have confused themselves for Jesus Christ or who are simply trying to brainwash people into "believing" in their "religion." 

But when these exact same statements are made by Popes or "saints" (and several popes thought that just being a pope was enough to make one a saint), they think it is almost blasphemous to suggest that they should ever be interpreted in the very same way.  It is as if every Catholic possess "infallible" certainty that no pope has ever once, however slightly, been corrupted by the power of their office, or ever once confused them self with actually being "sweet Christ on earth." This is true, even though John Paul II was canonized as a saint, even after he facilitated the sexual crimes of his own Catholic clergy by refusing to take measures to stop it or prosecute those he knew were responsible for it.

The Catholic likewise assumes, again with absolute "infallible" certainty, that by allowing people like Catherine of Siena or Francis of Assisi to refer to a pope with terms like "sweet Christ on earth" and "the Lord pope," that not a single "true" Catholic has ever, or will ever, begin to confuse those popes with their God or their Christ, however slightly. And if ever anyone does, that is their fault, as a lack of "faith," and they will have to figure it out on their own, or suffer the eternal consequences for ever making so fallible a mistake.

Atheists then are left to conclude that this must just be one of those "mysteries of faith" that only the "faithful" know to be "true," because by "truth" they mean simply what they choose to "believe" in faith.

 

That all of these statements illustrate a far greater insertion of an earthly "God" or spiritual monarch between humanity and God, and therefore a far greater infraction of the First Commandment, than anything King David had ever asserted or did, is simply denied by Catholics and Christians alike, who all insist that the "true" meaning of such statements can only be understood by "true believers." At this point, of course, there's no use in pointing out that this is exactly the same explanation offered by the followers of Charles Manson, David Koresh, and Jim Jones.