Originally posted by Grand_Moff_GavI'm quoting the Catholic Encyclopedia here:
Yes he does...It would be a simple fact of him saying something along these lines...
"This law is against the laws of God...I as God's earthly representative know what laws he wants...this one is contrary to his nature...therefore you must disobey it under pain of excommunication."
Infallibility is not attributed to every doctrinal act of the pope, but only to his ex cathedra teaching; and the conditions required for ex cathedra teaching are mentioned in the Vatican decree:* The pontiff must teach in his public and official capacity as pastor and doctor of all Christians, not merely in his private capacity as a theologian, preacher or allocutionist, nor in his capacity as a temporal prince or as a mere ordinary of the Diocese of Rome. It must be clear that he speaks as spiritual head of the Church universal.
* Then it is only when, in this capacity, he teaches some doctrine of faith or morals that he is infallible
Originally posted by Strangelove
I'm quoting the Catholic Encyclopedia here:
However, even though your quote was totally irrelevant I will indulge it with...the Catechism.
2032 The Church, the "pillar and bulwark of the truth," "has received this solemn command of Christ from the apostles to announce the saving truth."74 "To the Church belongs the right always and everywhere to announce moral principles, including those pertaining to the social order, and to make judgments on any human affairs to the extent that they are required by the fundamental rights of the human person or the salvation of souls."
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_GavHave you ever spoken to someone in the Catholic church about the doctrine of papal infallibility, or are you just expressing an opinion? Because the idea that the Pope could use his ex cathedra infallibility to undercut social constructs like law and order in democratic countries seems to undercut something that Jesus once said: “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s” (Matthew 22:21)
Thats great, however it is fully in his capacity to expand that infallibility to all things...as has been done in the past, namely Boniface VII.However, even though your quote was totally irrelevant I will indulge it with...the Catechism.
How do you respond to something like that? How can someone argue that the Pope's infallibility extends to constructs beyond that of faith and morals when there is the possibility of truly corrupt Popes (Alexander VI, Sixtus IV)?
Originally posted by Strangelove
Have you ever spoken to someone in the Catholic church about the doctrine of papal infallibility, or are you just expressing an opinion? Because the idea that the Pope could use his ex cathedra infallibility to undercut social constructs like law and order in democratic countries seems to undercut something that Jesus once said: “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s” (Matthew 22:21)How do you respond to something like that? How can someone argue that the Pope's infallibility extends to constructs beyond that of faith and morals when there is the possibility of truly corrupt Popes (Alexander VI, Sixtus IV)?
Yes I have, and I myself am Catholic.
That Jesus quote is nice but easily worked around for any Canon Lawyer. (Namly by saying it was a clever dodge, however it had double meaning...since everything is God's- even Caesar's cones are God's.)
Yes it can lead to corruption that doesn't dilute the fact that Papal Infallibility can extend to all matters and ever matter on earth.
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Thats great, however it is fully in his capacity to expand that infallibility to all things...as has been done in the past, namely Boniface VII.However, even though your quote was totally irrelevant I will indulge it with...the Catechism.
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
That Jesus quote is nice but easily worked around for any Canon Lawyer. (Namly by saying it was a clever dodge, however it had double meaning...since everything is God's- even Caesar's cones are God's.)
When you have to hire specially trained lawyers to "work around" the words of Jesus I think you're straying pretty far.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
When you have to hire specially trained lawyers to "work around" the words of Jesus I think you're straying pretty far.
I disagree, I think it proves how easy things are open to interpretation, and ofcourse who is the one person with the authority to give a final judgment on the meaning of a biblical verse- the Pope!
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
I disagree, I think it proves how easy things are open to interpretation, and ofcourse who is the one person with the authority to give a final judgment on the meaning of a biblical verse- the Pope!
. . . how about Jesus? Besides it's open to interpretation which means that the Pope has pretty much no claim to be able to give the right one considering that who the Pope is keeps changing. I'll admit that for a Catholic the Pope's interpretation is absolute but you can hardly expect the rest of us to accept that, let alone the opinions of lawyers hired to resolve every inconvinient thing that Jesus says.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
. . . how about Jesus? Besides it's open to interpretation which means that the Pope has pretty much no claim to be able to give the right one considering that who the Pope is keeps changing. I'll admit that for a Catholic the Pope's interpretation is absolute but you can hardly expect the rest of us to accept that, let alone the opinions of lawyers hired to resolve every inconvinient thing that Jesus says.
Matthew 16:18:
I also say to you that you are (1)Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.
1: Peter's name literally translates to "rock"
Christ gave the pope the ability to "bind in heaven"; that is to teach infallibly when using the doctrine of infallibility. If you believe in Christ and His word in the Holy Bible; this is positive proof of the Pope's infallibility.
Originally posted by Transfinitum
Matthew 16:18:1: Peter's name literally translates to "rock"
Christ gave the pope the ability to "bind in heaven"; that is to teach infallibly when using the doctrine of infallibility. If you believe in Christ and His word in the Holy Bible; this is positive proof of the Pope's infallibility.
I can see the argument of founding the Papacy. The rest is a huge stretch.
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_GavRegardless of your personal opinion, I find it hard to believe that in good conscience that the Pope could use his supposed infallibility to, say, renounce the governments of their home countries. That has no bearing on morals, faith, or indeed anything to do with religion. Would every Catholic be obliged to obey, in your opinion?
Yes I have, and I myself am Catholic.That Jesus quote is nice but easily worked around for any Canon Lawyer. (Namly by saying it was a clever dodge, however it had double meaning...since everything is God's- even Caesar's cones are God's.)
Yes it can lead to corruption that doesn't dilute the fact that Papal Infallibility can extend to all matters and ever matter on earth.
I read your quote from the Catechism thoroughly, and nowhere does it say that his infallibility is absolute. I says "To the Church belongs the right always and everywhere to announce moral principles, including those pertaining to the social order[...]"
Moral principles. The Catechism itself limits the infallibility of the Pope. I can see how that can be seen very broadly, but what if, say, the Pope, as was mentioned before, said it was the "moral duty" to kill all the Jews. Would anyone in their right mind consider it Moral? Would the Pope's judgment be suspect?
Originally posted by Strangelove
Regardless of your personal opinion, I find it hard to believe that in good conscience that the Pope could use his supposed infallibility to, say, renounce the governments of their home countries. That has no bearing on morals, faith, or indeed anything to do with religion. Would every Catholic be obliged to obey, in your opinion?I read your quote from the Catechism thoroughly, and nowhere does it say that his infallibility is absolute. I says "To the Church belongs the right always and everywhere to announce moral principles, including those pertaining to the social order[...]"
[b]Moral
principles. The Catechism itself limits the infallibility of the Pope. I can see how that can be seen very broadly, but what if, say, the Pope, as was mentioned before, said it was the "moral duty" to kill all the Jews. Would anyone in their right mind consider it Moral? Would the Pope's judgment be suspect? [/B]
Infallibility is, by the very definition of the word, absolute. If it is not or ever can be false (definition of infallible) then it is redundant to say that infallibility is infallible in the catechism.
On the second point, while it is true that infallibility only extends to moral or dogmatic issues; the expounding upon that teaching can involve going against governments and organizations. Furthermore, the doctrine of infallibility only extends to when the Pope speaks authoritatively to the Church, explicitly stating the infalibility of the statement.
There is another form of infallibility, which is enacted through repeated Church traditions and councils which do not need to be explicitly stated, but that is not what is being referred to here.
But hypothetical questions about infallibility are pointless because of the nature of those questions. Any sort of thing could be infallible, but that in no way implies that it is infallible. In response to your question, the Pope's judgement would be "bound in heaven" as it was "bound on earth"; making the statement inherently true, no matter what it was.