theoretical Ex Cathedra

[Uphill Battle]

Ok, theoretical question.

(and spare me the "It would never happen" arguement, I know that's what's believed.

If a pope made a proclamation, Ex Cathedra, that appeared heretical, or at the very least contra-biblical, would the Catholic laity be forced to believe it regardless? and would you? Even if it went against understood theology, and it made your spirit writh? I'm wondering exactly how far the capitulation to the Roman Pontiff goes.

 

[Rhamiel]

I trust the Church God made more then I trust myself.

 

[Uphill Battle]

I trust the Church God made more then I trust myself.

In otherwords, yes, even if the Pope proclaimed something that went against the bible, you'd follow it.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

If a pope made a proclamation, Ex Cathedra, that appeared heretical, or at the very least contra-biblical, would the Catholic laity be forced to believe it regardless? and would you? Even if it went against understood theology, and it made your spirit writh? I'm wondering exactly how far the capitulation to the Roman Pontiff goes.

One of the criterion for making an ex cathedra statement is that it has already passed into common rite, usage, belief, and practice. Another is that an ex cathedra statement cannot contradict previous infallible statements of the church.

For these two reasons I cannot entirely accept your hypothetical situation, since there is such a large body of previous doctrine confining any subsequent developments.

That said, I (being Lutheran) think the Catholic Church has made heretical statements in the past, namely at the Great (Fourth) Lateran Council, the Council of Trent, and Vatican I. But they cannot contradict what they already have it right, and I cannot see them going any further off the mark where they have it wrong.

 

[Rhamiel]

In otherwords, yes, even if the Pope proclaimed something that went against the bible, you'd follow it.

No the Pope can not go agianst the Bible for doctrine, the Holy Ghost protects the Church

 

[E.C.]

If a pope made a proclamation, Ex Cathedra, that appeared heretical, or at the very least contra-biblical, would the Catholic laity be forced to believe it regardless? and would you? Even if it went against understood theology, and it made your spirit writh? I'm wondering exactly how far the capitulation to the Roman Pontiff goes.

Keep in mind, that there are those that believe (and with good reason) that other popes have made decisions that are considered heretical.

 

[Uphill Battle]

No the Pope can not go agianst the Bible for doctrine, the Holy Ghost protects the Church

you missed the point of the OP.

 

[Assisi]

Can God make a stone so heavy that He can't lift it?

 

[Rhamiel]

you missed the point of the OP.

No I did not, you asked if a pope made a proclamation that "seemed heretical" and made my "soul writh" how would I respond. You did not ask how I would respond if the Pope made a heretical proclamation but only what I saw as heretical. I can understand that looks can be deceiving. I also understand that God keeps His promises.

 

[Robskiwarrior]

A very good question. The pope is only a human, even he can do things to his own means - there has been a lot of curruption in the past. Would be interesting to see what happend if he came out with something strange.

 

[Splayd]

The Catholic Church isn't the one-man show that many of us Protestants think it is. "Infallibility" doesn't really apply to everything... and it's not even like he comes out and says something like "Alright - this time I'm speaking ex-cathedra."

SO - even if the Pope could come out and say something like "Turns out that we were wrong about God. He's really an alien named Bob. Oh - and by the way I'm speaking infallibly this time." the Church wouldn't accept that he was speaking ex-cathedra. I'm sure it would send shock-waves across the world, but at the end of the day it still wouldn't be official Catholic doctrine.

Of course my example is ludicrous, but so is the premise of the hypothetical really. I appreciate that Protestants may well believe that the Pope could speak a "heresy" that is considered "ex-cathedra", but understand that even if that is the case it wouldn't be something "new" but rather a statement about something that's already accepted within Catholicism.

Peace

 

[ScottBot]

Ok, theoretical question.

(and spare me the "It would never happen" arguement, I know that's what's believed.

If a pope made a proclamation, Ex Cathedra, that appeared heretical, or at the very least contra-biblical, would the Catholic laity be forced to believe it regardless? and would you? Even if it went against understood theology, and it made your spirit writh? I'm wondering exactly how far the capitulation to the Roman Pontiff goes.

Since the Holy Spirit would prevent this from happening, you're "hypothetical" carries no water.

 

[ScottBot]

The Catholic Church isn't the one-man show that many of us Protestants think it is. "Infallibility" doesn't really apply to everything... and it's not even like he comes out and says something like "Alright - this time I'm speaking ex-cathedra."

SO - even if the Pope could come out and say something like "Turns out that we were wrong about God. He's really an alien named Bob. Oh - and by the way I'm speaking infallibly this time." the Church wouldn't accept that he was speaking ex-cathedra. I'm sure it would send shock-waves across the world, but at the end of the day it still wouldn't be official Catholic doctrine.

Of course my example is ludicrous, but so is the premise of the hypothetical really. I appreciate that Protestants may well believe that the Pope could speak a "heresy" that is considered "ex-cathedra", but understand that even if that is the case it wouldn't be something "new" but rather a statement about something that's already accepted within Catholicism.

Peace

This is an excellent discussion on the boundaries of the charism of infallibility.

If the Pope stepped up to a microphone and announced to the world, "To be saved, you must wear a pink hat at all times." there would be some gullible enough to believe it. but since many of us realize that this has never been a constant teaching of the Church, we would likely respond with "G'on, ya big dope." (Well actually, we would pray that the Pontiff regained his sanity.)

 

[Uphill Battle]

This is an excellent discussion on the boundaries of the charism of infallibility.

If the Pope stepped up to a microphone and announced to the world, "To be saved, you must wear a pink hat at all times." there would be some gullible enough to believe it. but since many of us realize that this has never been a constant teaching of the Church, we would likely respond with "G'on, ya big dope." (Well actually, we would pray that the Pontiff regained his sanity.)

this is what I was looking for.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Since the Holy Spirit would prevent this from happening, you're "hypothetical" carries no water.

yet to be proven.

and, like I said in the OP..... spare me it.

 

[ScottBot]

yet to be proven.

and, like I said in the OP..... spare me it.

You don't see it. I do. Paradigms are funny things they are.

 

[Uphill Battle]

You don't see it. I do. Paradigms are funny things they are.

'xcept mine is free of circular reasoning.

 

[ScottBot]

'xcept mine is free of circular reasoning.

, so you like to convince yourself.

 

[Uphill Battle]

, so you like to convince yourself.

please. You telling me that "RCC is right" why? " Cause RCC says so" isn't circular?

When you boil it down to basics, that's what it amounts to.

As I said. Unproven. (in fact, demonstratable that it ISN'T so.)

 

[Tonks]

When you boil it down to basics, that's what it amounts to.

If you break apart a car into its small component parts it won't make sense either...which is flaw in such reasoning as it removes context.

Catholicism isn't a push for the "most simple way" particularly as one risks tunnel vision should that be their ultimate approach.