Slowly, I get the impression that "cannot err" claims of infallibility are things that only exist retroactively within the Catholic church. I'm hearing that Cardinals can elect the "wrong man", that Cardinals can resist the Holy Spirit, and that Popes can make statements in opposition to doctrine and dogma which have to be corrected or reinterpreted later. Where does infallibility take place, if not "after the fact" with the victors writing the history books?
When the Pope speaks (a) to the whole church; (b) in his supreme apostolic authority; (c) definitively teaching; (c) a doctrine concerning faith and morals. All four conditions must be present. (This was defined by Vatican I. Look it up; the name of the document is Pastor Aeternus.)
An interview given to a secular journalist flunks a, b, and c, hands down, no questions asked.
I'm hearing that Cardinals can elect the "wrong man", that Cardinals can resist the Holy Spirit, and that Popes can make statements in opposition to doctrine and dogma which have to be corrected or reinterpreted later.
You know I am simply amazed that there are people out there who have really thought that the Cardinals could not elect the "wrong man." One would have to have a pretty wacky sense of history and/or God's prerogatives in order to think otherwise. It seems to me, though, that the biggest problem in all of this is the oversimplified musings of Catholics regarding things they don't fully understand. For instance, I have been told by priests, priests mind you, that Christ is physically present in the Eucharist. Needless to say numerous Catholics in the pews have also argued and promoted this idea. Nonsense of course, and not in the least reflective of Church teaching, but it is a common meme thrown about by people in discussing the Eucharist.
Papal authority is also affected by this kind of simplistic reasoning, and that is why people are now trying to reinterpret things that the pope is spouting everywhere. They need to clean up his comments or they will have to reassess their overstated ideas of the papacy.
Whenever they do so then they are interpreted otherwise. See contrasts here .
I’d say you might want to check your hearing aids.