Posted on 09/01/2018 7:30:20 AM PDT by ealgeone
In RC theology it actually is promised to the office, at least when speaking according to V1 conditions. However,
Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ's doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held.(40*) This is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church, whose definitions must be adhered to with the submission of faith.(41*)
Yet,
The degree in which the infallible magisterium of the Holy See is committed must be judged from the circumstances, and from the language used in the particular case. — Catholic Encyclopedia>Encyclical; http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05413a.htm Moreover,
Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will [versus assent of faith which infallible decrees require] must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; — http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html
Still,
Donum Veritatis also allows that even if "not habitually mistaken in its prudential judgments," "some Magisterial documents might not be free from all deficiencies," and withholding assent is allowed for a theologian "who might have serious difficulties, for reasons which appear to him wellfounded, in accepting a non-irreformable magisterial teaching." In such "even if the doctrine of the faith is not in question, the theologian will not present his own opinions or divergent hypotheses as though they were non-arguable conclusions..." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obsequium_religiosum
Guess how many variant RC opinions there are on this?
However, the premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome (and basically in primary cults) is a unScriptural novelty.
A RC response is to argue that this was not a contradiction of defined doctrine, but an open, undefined theological question which was later condemned by subsequent Popes as heretical. Which is what the OP article postulates. It is likewise argued this was not an infallible teaching, and to hold it as one is to be guilty of the ultramontanist position:
This view was rejected by the Council (yet many Orthodox and Protestants think this is what was adopted). The danger of such a theological position is not only the ultra-monarchist, dictatorial overtones but the inevitable historical problems of the past popes who obviously erred—the most notable examples being Pope St. Liberius, Pope Vigilius, Pope Honorius I, Pope John XXII, Pope Sixtus V, Pope Paul V, Pope Clement XIII, and Pope Pius VIIII. http://the-american-catholic.com/2010/10/03/the-infallibility-of-the-pope-and-the-magisterium/
In any case , it seems one rule that must be followed by devout RCs is that the pope must be protected at any cost from Protestant allegations, unless RC laity themselves dissent from him.
Actually, while condemning historical evangelical-types for ascertaining the veracity of teaching by examination of the most ancient and only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the OT and gospels), versus submitting to their pope and magisterium, traditional Catholics ascertain the veracity of modern teaching by examination of what the RC church historically believed, mainly the medieval period to 1960.
Broadly speaking, in both cases there exists the strongest unity and contentions against those who basically disagree with their commonly held ethos (and pathos), as well as disagreements with each other, and overall the divisions within and from those without illustrates how much Catholic teaching, and not just Scripture, can be subject to variant interpretations.
That is not in your OP article, but is found here: http://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2013/01/31/pope-removed-from-office/ As we all know, there is no higher-ranking official in the Catholic Church than the Pope. Canon 331 is unambiguous: the Pope alone has supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church. (See “Are there Any Limitations on the Power of the Pope?” for more on this topic.) Consequently, in the absence of any “special laws which have been enacted” to handle this particular situation, there is nobody on earth who has the authority to make an official determination that the Pope is incapacitated and must be removed, or that somebody else should henceforth govern in his place.
It simply cannot be done...
...no matter how high-ranking...they couldn’t do a thing about it. On top of that, they’re actually blocked by existing law from making such public objections: canon 1404 states tersely that the First See is judged by no one. Once the Pope himself has made a decision, no appeal can be lodged—so if someone ever wanted to argue that a decision that the Pope made was irrational, there’s simply no way procedurally to do that!
Are you referring to this:
[Catholic Caucus only] Pope calls plastics littering oceans an ‘emergency’
. . . with the successor of Peter . . . (my bolding for emphasis)
But not above him, while the pope does not the bishops to ratify the veracity and authority of what he said "from the chair."
Yet RCs charge us with presuming to be "little popes," though instead of presuming ensured infallibility, our veracity must rest upon the weight of evidential warrant.
However, note that only the very declaration of an infallible statement is considered to be protected from error, and not the arguments or reasoning enlisted in support of it (and despite the lack thereof).
Nor are infallible statements considered to be wholly inspired of God as Scripture is, or as providing new public revelation, and thus they cannot be equal with Scripture, or all the oral wholly inspired statements and new revelation of men such as the apostles. "
No, I was not referencing that debate—the source I referenced takes a different approach to the topic than Staples did there; but thank you for the link.
Got it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.