Pontifical decrees on the movement of the earth...shows papal infallibility fallible?

[tz620q]

If that is the case, there is risk in following a papal decree. It may be wrong.

True, Catholics are not the mindless drones that we are sometimes made out to be though. If the decree about the Immaculate Conception or the Assumption had not been generally believed before the papal decree had come out, there would have been a new wave of protesters. We are only asked by the Church to read and try to understand why a certain stance has been taken. I have been a Catholic for over 20 years now and there is still a lot to learn.

One of the things I just learned was about Vatican I. This council was never formally concluded until 1961 at the start of Vatican II because the bishops had to be dismissed to flee from the Piedmontese army that was taking Rome and the Vatican at that time. At the end of Vatican II a book was published with all the Vatican II documents in it with introductions by Vatican II participants to set the document in context. The introduction to Lumen Gentium, the new Dogmatic Constitution of the Church had a very interesting historical note. It claimed that there had been a preliminary 15 chapter document prepared for Vatican I that was to be the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church. Only 4 chapters were discussed and published, the 4 that dealt with papal powers. So not until Lumen Gentium did we see a Dogmatic Constitution of the Church that placed papal powers within the broader context of Magisterial and Collegial powers. So as a present day Catholic living 45 years after Vatican II, I find it strange that people still refer back to Pastor Aeturnus from 1870, when we have a much more recent and comprehensive document in Lumen Gentium.

 

[MrPolo]

In skimming this thread, couple things:

1. If the person quoted in the OP is correctly quoting a Pope, papal infallibility doesn't apply to matters of science, so the argument against infallibility is moot.

2. Papal infallibility only concerns matters of faith or morals and then only when he speaks from the chair of Peter (ex cathedra) (not literally, but figuratively).

3. It has arguably only been exercised twice as another poster quoted, and even one of my college professors stated.

4. Papal infallibility itself was defined at Vatican I (full context). Here is the pertinent statement, defined by the council:

we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.​

As to whether we should ignore anything the Pope states apart from this, that would not be wise. As with any apostolic successor, their writings should be seen as authoritative even if not infallible. For example, when Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) wrote about methods of interpreting Scripture, he was not defining dogma, but nevertheless offers most valuable insight as to how to approach the Bible.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Ah what slippery, slithery things are these Catholic dogmas, doctrines, pronouncements, bulls, etc. What is held in great awe and belief as the very Word of God by one generation is tossed into the dustbin by a later generation with the hope the nobody will bother to dig around in that dustbin. It amazes me that the Catholic church is utterly and completely incapable of admitting that it ever made a mistake. Instead, it redefines things extensively to eliminate all that might be embarrassing or even disgusting.

 

[Jig]

Ah what slippery, slithery things are these Catholic dogmas, doctrines, pronouncements, bulls, etc. What is held in great awe and belief as the very Word of God by one generation is tossed into the dustbin by a later generation with the hope the nobody will bother to dig around in that dustbin. It amazes me that the Catholic church is utterly and completely incapable of admitting that it ever made a mistake. Instead, it redefines things extensively to eliminate all that might be embarrassing or even disgusting.

Just reading through church history and realizing that at one time there was two colleges of cardinals and three proclaimed popes fighting for power at the same time makes me wonder about the validity of the pontifical lineage that is claimed to run from the current pope to Peter.

 

[tz620q]

Ah what slippery, slithery things are these Catholic dogmas, doctrines, pronouncements, bulls, etc. What is held in great awe and belief as the very Word of God by one generation is tossed into the dustbin by a later generation with the hope the nobody will bother to dig around in that dustbin.

And the Protestant world is a bastion of constancy?

It amazes me that the Catholic church is utterly and completely incapable of admitting that it ever made a mistake. Instead, it redefines things extensively to eliminate all that might be embarrassing or even disgusting.

Then please read the following links:
about JPII's apology to Galileo
http://www.beliefnet.com/News/2000/03/The-Vaticans-Turn-To-Recant.aspx

and about wrongs done during the Crusades
http://www.crusades-encyclopedia.com/apologyforthecrusades.html

 

[tz620q]

Just reading through church history and realizing that at one time there was two colleges of cardinals and three proclaimed popes fighting for power at the same time makes me wonder about the validity of the pontifical lineage that is claimed to run from the current pope to Peter.

Do you feel this relates to infallibility or is this a separate topic?

 

[Jig]

Do you feel this relates to infallibility or is this a separate topic?

Who cares if it does or not...this is my thread.

And the Protestant world is a bastion of constancy?

I am not a Protestant.

 

[Ave Maria]

Nope, it shows no such thing. The pope is only infallible when speaking on matters of faith and morals.

 

[Jig]

Nope, it shows no such thing. The pope is only infallible when speaking on matters of faith and morals.

I addressed this issue in post #12.

 

[Ave Maria]

I addressed this issue in post #12.

You'll have to forgive me then for I did not read the entire thread before posting.

 

[tz620q]

Who cares if it does or not...this is my thread.

Which is why I did you the courtesy of asking for clarification on your thinking before responding to your off-topic post.

I am not a Protestant.

Then why did you even start this thread. Protestant is an appellation given to a group that protests the Catholic church.