Originally posted by Transfinitum
Without express command of the Papacy or the precedent of the church, correct. But remember "loose on earth", "bound in heaven"
The Papacy only "could" be infallible just like everything else.
Have you considered that maybe Jesus just knew Peter was into bondage and was promising him hot man on angel sex? Or that perhaps he was only giving the right to Peter and not the succession of Popes? Or that "bound in heaven" has to be taken quite creatively to mean "you're now infallible"?
One more thing, if the Pope declared he could lift anything and then failed to lift a really big rock would reality be at fault?
Originally posted by Transfinitum
Just think of it like a mantra 😉
Nonsensical and without meaning until you choose one to focus through it?
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.
I didn't ask you too accept it, in fact I expected you not too.
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?
Yes he can and yes if a Catholic wished to remain in Communion with the Church they would have to accept the Pope's ex cathedra statement, of course not all Catholics agree with what the Church says on many things- abortion being one of them.
Originally posted by Strangelove
[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]
The Pope has the authority to define morality, indeed in my opinion every judgement involves some moral implication. Economic Policy involes morality. Social policy involves morality. So, if he said it (and Pope's have done it before) then yes it probably would be suspect by many Catholics...but he is still the Pope.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The Papacy only "could" be infallible just like everything else.
Not true; if the Son of God incarnate gives you the ability to "bind in heaven" then by the very definition of the perfection of heaven; your statement must, by definition, be true. This is what separates the Church's infallibility from heathens who try to claim it.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Or that perhaps he was only giving the right to Peter and not the succession of Popes?
Unfortunately for your position, Apostolic Succession is biblically supported in Acts 1:20
For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.
So, in effect there is evidence of this statute in Holy Scripture, which is the Word of God and his laws and commands.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Or that "bound in heaven" has to be taken quite creatively to mean "you're now infallible"?
See above; if you can bind in heaven, you must speak the truth as per the definition of heaven.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
One more thing, if the Pope declared he could lift anything and then failed to lift a really big rock would reality be at fault?
Again another stupid presupposition, infallibility only extends to statements declared infallible. Without the statement of infallibility, we do not know if something is true or could ever be, so speculation upon what "could" be infallible is pointless and worthless.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
^r u claiming that there has never been any inconcistancy of decisions or teachings or the direction in which to take the catholic church between popes?! cause if theyr ALL infalliable, then there shudnt be right?
There has never been a contradiction in the doctrine of infallibility, sure popes have held differing personal beliefs; but never when teaching infallibly.
Originally posted by Transfinitum
...This is what separates the Church's infallibility from heathens who try to claim it...
And how did the church in it's infallibility deal with the "Heathens"? "Kill them all and let god sort them out".
Originally posted by Transfinitum
...So, in effect there is evidence of this statute in Holy Scripture, which is the Word of God and his laws and commands...
The bible is not evidence; The bible is a book written by humans.
Originally posted by Transfinitum
Not true; if the Son of God incarnate gives you the ability to "bind in heaven" then by the very definition of the perfection of heaven; your statement must, by definition, be true. This is what separates the Church's infallibility from heathens who try to claim it.
. . .
Originally posted by Transfinitum
Unfortunately for your position, Apostolic Succession is biblically supported in Acts 1:20So, in effect there is evidence of this statute in Holy Scripture, which is the Word of God and his laws and commands.
See above; if you can bind in heaven, you must speak the truth as per the definition of heaven.
You didn't define heaven or give particularly relevant quotes, IMO.
Originally posted by Transfinitum
Again another stupid presupposition, infallibility only extends to statements declared infallible. Without the statement of infallibility, we do not know if something is true or could ever be, so speculation upon what "could" be infallible is pointless and worthless.
Okay, the same thing but this time he says it's infallibly true.
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_GavThe Pope is the head of their country. Well, he's the head of a country.
The question is:Should Roman Catholic's follow the Pope before the Head of State of their country?
In my opinion, your not a true Catholic if you don't accept that the Pontiff is the successor to Saint Peter and therefore Jesus' appointed representative on Earth.
Thusly, I would put the decrees of the Holy Father before that of the House of Commons or the Queen. Is this unreasonable?
Originally posted by TransfinitumPardon me if I find that absolutely ridiculous. And I was raised Catholic.
But hypothetical questions about infallibility are pointless because of the nature of those questions. Any sort of thing [b]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. [/B]
Originally posted by leonheartmm
cudja give me a list of all statement on whic INFALLIABILITY has been declared{and btw, ur admitting that the pope is falliable, only a limited number of statements are infalliable}
Exactly, he has the ability to declare things which are infalliable and it has been done only twice.
Once, concerning the Immaculate Conception and again concerning the Assumption of Mary.
Originally posted by Strangelove
Pardon me if I find that absolutely ridiculous. And I was raised Catholic.
You can find it ridiculous all you want, its still Catholic Theology.
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Exactly, he has the ability to declare things which are infalliable and it has been done only twice.Once, concerning the Immaculate Conception and again concerning the Assumption of Mary.
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
You can find it ridiculous all you want, its still Catholic Theology.
Originally posted by RocasAtoll
Yes, and both of those are so much like undermining a government.
...that means nothing.
Originally posted by RocasAtoll
Not the way you're trying to twist it. A Pope is infallible on a clearly defined and narrow parameter.
Originally posted by RocasAtoll
If a Pope overstepped that parameter, there would be repercussions against him.
Quite possibly, but that wouldn't stop him from doing it though would it?
Originally posted by RocasAtoll
No matter if he is vicar, he is still a man and if he oversteps his power, it will not be listened to anymore in this day and age.
He cannot overstep his power because his power is absolute. (Theoretically) However, you are correct people would probably ignore him or act against him yet, what the majority of people do doesn't necessarily reflect the right action or indeed what God wants.
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
...He cannot overstep his power because his power is absolute. (Theoretically) However, you are correct people would probably ignore him or act against him yet, what the majority of people do doesn't necessarily reflect the right action or indeed what God wants.
No human should ever have that much power.
In Canada, nobody would ever ask the question.
Religion is a matter of heart, of passion.
Politics is a matter of head, of reflection.
The two things can't get together.
I'm from Quebec, and in my province, Catholic Religion was predominent. In fact, it was too much. Quebec was, in social politics, 40 years behind any other province in Canada.
But we had what's it's called "La Révolution Tranquille", were Religions and Neo-Cons been throw out of politics for years.
After it, we made a giants steps in social politics.
No, really, Religion must not touch politics. Or it would be like Afghanistan, and other musulman contries.
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
What do you mean "behind"?I think your mistaken, I don't know how its possible for me to make a decision on the death penalty, war, foreign aid and many other issues without reviewing what I believe in. I can't help it- I really can't.
By "behind", I mean that we were living in a old conservative systems.
I think (it's my point of view, and only mine) that philosophy is of a greater help when we have to decide great decisions, like Death Penality, War, Gay marriage, etc.
Oh, and sorry. I am limitate in my respons, because I have difficulty to really say what I mean. I usually speak french, so... And sorry about my ortograph too.