Pope "infallible only in rare situations"

[MichaelFJF]

I thought it only counted if he was sitting on the Infallability chair, wearing the Hat of Incorruptability and Wielding the Mace of I'mneverwrongedness...

bleh.

Quote:

2.3 You will not post anything that puts down or belittles any Christian group or denomination.

Hmmm

 

[trunks2k]

Interesting statement by Benedict XVI.

Well, according to Catholic Dogma, he's correct. There are only certain situations in which the church can claim to be infalliable. It's not that everything the pope says is supposed to be correct. It's when the pope makes certain, specific pronouncements that he's infalliable. I forgot what the circumstances are supposed to be.

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

As far as I am aware, the requirements for infallibility are...
--The Pope must be acting "ex cathedra" i.e. from the chair [office] of Peter and confirming His Holiness' brethren, the Bishops.
--His Holiness must be making a statement about faith or morals.
--HH must be teaching something to be held by all of the Church's faithful.

These conditions are indeed met in relatively few papal statements, written or spoken. A few ones that are certain are the promogulation of the Marian dogmas of the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception. These were doctrines (i.e. things generally taught by the Ordinary Magisterium [teaching authority]--i.e. the Bishops acting everyday and outside of Ecumenical Councils--but not absolutely binding on the faithful) to dogmas (binding on the faithful). Infallible papal declarations are of the Extraordinary Magisterium [teaching authority], as are the doctrinal acclamations of Ecumenical Councils.

I might be wrong, as I have a feeling there might be a few more.

To speak infallibly is to be incapable or erring ,not simply to refrain from erring. For example, if I say that 2+2=4 or that God exists (strictly from a Christian perspective) I am correct. But I could have just as easily said 2+2=0 or God does not exist. So I was no incapable of erring. At least, that's what it seems to mean to me.

Rob

 

[InnerPhyre]

Aww, and I was really liking this pope before he started the America bashing.

It never ceases to amaze me how so many make an idol out of their nation....

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

It never ceases to amaze me how so many make an idol out of their nation....

Yep.

 

[MichaelFJF]

It never ceases to amaze me how so many make an idol out of their nation....

I can't remember the exact situation, but I know I have used "God trumps the constitution" in a few debates.

 

[MadeInOz]

Firstly, it was my understanding that for his pronouncements to be infallible, he has to be sitting in a certain seat. So I wasn't that far off, I was merely trying to make light of a situation, which already seemed kind of humourous.

 

[Moros]

It was those so called rare situations of papal infallbility which caused irreconcilable division with just about everybody else.

 

[msufan]

In the Pope's defense, I think he was making a statement intended to LIMIT Catholics' view of his infallibility, not to promote it.

 

[CJ.23]

As far as I am aware, the requirements for infallibility are...
--The Pope must be acting "ex cathedra" i.e. from the chair [office] of Peter and confirming His Holiness' brethren, the Bishops.
--His Holiness must be making a statement about faith or morals.
--HH must be teaching something to be held by all of the Church's faithful.

These conditions are indeed met in relatively few papal statements, written or spoken. A few ones that are certain are the promogulation of the Marian dogmas of the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception. These were doctrines (i.e. things generally taught by the Ordinary Magisterium [teaching authority]--i.e. the Bishops acting everyday and outside of Ecumenical Councils--but not absolutely binding on the faithful) to dogmas (binding on the faithful). Infallible papal declarations are of the Extraordinary Magisterium [teaching authority], as are the doctrinal acclamations of Ecumenical Councils.

You are completely correct. What this means is that statements on say the ordination of women and contraception and many many other issues are not[/i] technically infallible; he is limiting the claims of Papal Infallibility to the conservative position held by Liberal Catholics, that the Pope must meet the aforesaid three criteria. Not being technically Infallible does not mean they are wrong, or not true and part of the faith however! So contraception is clearly condemned still: it is just not infallible. The Assumption an the immaculate Conception are - that is it; you can to backtrack infallibility before 1870 o previous declared statements.

Interesting stuff, and only really going to cause a stir for the tiny number who decide that if a statement is not infallible it is not part of the Church's teaching and still true (clearly nuts as the main body of teaching si not technically infallible by the definition) and the even fewer who regard everything the Pope says and does as Infallible, in violation of actual doctrine.

Good article, and interesting perspectives by the ne Pope.

cj x

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

You are completely correct. What this means is that statements on say the ordination of women and contraception and many many other issues are not technically infallible.

You make a good point. However, I think it can indeed be argued that Ordinartio Sacerdotalis, which deals with female ordination, does make an infallible statement on the matter. His Holiness wrote:

Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful.

Full text of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis.

That would seem to me to meet all of the requirements for an infallible papal statment. It is definitive, to be held by all the faithful, a matter of Faith and spoken in the office of Peter.

Having said that, I'm sure you'll find plenty of articles discussing this, a number of which reach the conclusion that this was not an infallible statement.

Peace be with you,
Rob

 

[CJ.23]

Yes, it seems to meet the criteria explicitly enough. How do some argue it is not Infallibe? I am curious now?

cj x

 

[Fantine]

Benedict he said the "joy" at the growing numbers of churchmen in the developing world is accompanied by "a certain bitterness" because some would-be priests were only looking for a better life.

This has been true throughout history. In the Middle Ages, the first son would inherit the Manor, so the younger sons of the nobility would study for the priesthood so that they could maintain their lifestyle and position in society.

He said in contrast to the developing world, where there is a "springtime of faith," the West was "a world that is tired of its own culture, a world that has arrived at a time in which there's no more evidence of the need for God, much less Christ, and in which it seems that man alone can make himself.

Europeans are leaving traditional religions, it's true, but lots of articles say that Europeans are more and more involved with "New Age" spirituality. So if Europeans are on a path of spiritual exploration, what is it about Catholicism that is failing to nourish them spiritually?

There are some people, such as Fr. Michael Morwood, author of "Tomorrow's Catholic," who would say that Catholicism needs to be re-imaged to take into consideration the information we now know about our universe. One example he gives, for example, is the idea that the world was perfect before Adam and Eve sinned (and, although the Church allows for theistic evolution, the catechism still describes a "perfect" world before Adam and Eve sinned.) Well, if there was a perfect world, why did the dinosaurs become extinct? Why did we have an Ice Age, etc.?

Morwood's book is thought-provoking, and the re-imaging he does makes a lot of sense to me.

So is the problem not that Europeans aren't spiritual, but that what they are hearing from traditional churches makes absolutely no sense to them in light of their education and experience?

And does censoring theologians and allowing for theological study only in a rigid straitjacket of tradition help the Church?

There are heretics, but there are also luddites and reactionaries. Is the ascendancy of the latter the reason why Catholicism is unappealing to former European Catholics?

Well, that's my reaction to the article.

 

[Dominus Fidelis]

Firstly, it was my understanding that for his pronouncements to be infallible, he has to be sitting in a certain seat. So I wasn't that far off, I was merely trying to make light of a situation, which already seemed kind of humourous.

Well there is your problem, you are woefully ignorant of the meaning of "chair of St Peter" since you think it is a "certain seat." But its good you can laugh about things you know nothing about.

 

[Dominus Fidelis]

It was those so called rare situations of papal infallbility which caused irreconcilable division with just about everybody else.

And yet there are over a billion of us for which it didn't cause irreconcilable divisions, so I guess it wasn't "just about everybody else" that fell into heresy.

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

Yes, it seems to meet the criteria explicitly enough. How do some argue it is not Infallibe? I am curious now?

I'm not sure to be honest...I try to stay away from heretical literature.

I think the core of it is that people don't want to accept that women will never be priests in the Catholic Church, so they look for loopholes. They may have found one, but I don't see how either.

Rob

 

[CJ.23]

Well I can't see how you can argue for Woman priests in teh Ctaholic Church, based on history or tradition or even Scripture. There were it seems a couple of female bishops in the early Church; Ireland had one, and St, Theodosia acted as Bishop as i recall, but I suspect they were oddities rather than the norm, and down to local circumstance.

Married Priests, yes fine. Tht was normal till very recntly, and still is in the Eastern Rite. Women priests? well probably not.

However, yes, this Bull apppears to be binding as you say. Perhaops it jas to explicitly state it si infallible? The question would be what makes this opinion spokem from the chair on faith otr morals and apprently to bind the Church more infallible han the similarly phrased condemnationof both Gulf Wars by Pope John Paul II?

Perhaps it has to be explicitly stated to be Infallible to be so?
I really don't know.

cj x

 

[the Colonel]

Sincere questions concerning Catholic orthodoxy and theology may be made in the OBOB forum.