Posted on 11/26/2016 5:00:52 AM PST by BlessedBeGod
“The Church doctrine, the Catechism says that the Pope is Infallible.”
Papal Infallibility is a limited thing. It does not make anyone a god nor does believing in it make someone into a god. Papal Infallibility only happens because of the Holy Spirit.
“Who, but God, is infallible?”
You are. I am. Just not all the time. If you ever said, “Trump is going to win in 2016!” that was an infallibly true statement was it not?
It is clear that the issue is not papal infallibility but your apparent misunderstanding of it.
Seems more like a king attempting to rule a kingdom.
It was used by Pope Pius IX to declare that the Blessed Virgin Mary was conceived without the stain of original sin on her soul. As a practical matter, that meant that she would never die and never suffer the pains of childbirth since those were punishments imposed for original sin which was otherwise (than Mary and Jesus Christ) the common lot of mankind as to death and of women as to bringing forth their children in travail. This doctrine as to Mary is known as the Immaculate Conception and was revealed by Mary in a vision granted to Bernadette Soubirous at Lourdes.
It was most recently used by Pope Pius XII to declare that the Blessed Virgin Mary was assumed, body and soul, into heaven. This is known as the Assumption.
The Immaculate Conception and the Assumption were long believed by most Catholics before being defined as dogma by those two popes.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church which I do not have easily on hand, defines the mandatory terms for what is called papal infallibility. The pope must specifically invoke that infallibility, speaking from the Throne of Peter as Supreme Pontiff. There may be additional requirements.
In the instances cited above, Pope Pius IX and Pope Pius XII were infallible. God is, of course, infallible but He is not alone in His infallibility. He is ALWAYS infallible. Popes are, on rare occasions (three so far) infallible. Fortunately Frankie the Apostate has never invoked infallibility.
The human authors of Scripture were infallible when they wrote Holy Writ. Actually, they possessed the higher gift of "inspiration". Infallibility is the merely negative charism of being preserved from teaching error. Inspiration is the positive charism of being able to teach precisely what God wishes to be taught. Inspiration implies infallibility, since God could never wish for error to be taught.
The Pope can teach infallibly (a/k/a, exercise the "extraordinary Papal magisterium") only if four defined conditions are all met:
Perhaps the point that Mariner meant to make is that, years ago, some catechism students were taught that the Pope is the divinely-inspired representative of Christ on earth, infallible as is The Lord. I was taught, additionally, not to read the scriptures because my intellect was too puny to comprehend those complex works. It is simply a theoretical conflict which can be rectified with powerful and irrefutable reasoning. I don’t mean to imply that I’m capable of comprehension of such reasoning. It’s merely a rather disconcerting episode of cognitive dissonance among those of us who took our education seriously.
The rest of the treatise fails because of that "establishing premise"
In fact yes, but de facto not to the Catholic
Not capable of error.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/infallible
Tell this retired alter boy how this Pope meets any of the definitions of infallible.
I see The Puppeteer Soros at work here.
“Perhaps the point that Mariner meant to make is that, years ago, some catechism students were taught that the Pope is the divinely-inspired representative of Christ on earth, infallible as is The Lord.”
The problem is that NO ONE HAS EVER BEEN TAUGHT THAT from a catechist. So, if that was Mariner’s point, then he was completely wrong. Again.
“No Where in scripture does Peter speak with infallibility.”
Sure he does: Acts 4:2. Either that is infallible or Jesus did not rise from the dead. Which is it?
“The rest of the treatise fails because of that “establishing premise””
You’ve just been proved wrong. Again, Acts 4:2.
Supporters received honours and preferment, while those who opposed Pope John XII, either informally or formally, experienced papal disfavour, and even punishment.
But the more Pope John XII and his supporters sought to promulgate his error, the greater the uproar and resistance from the Church beyond the papal court.
Determined to meet the challenge of Pope John XXI’s error head on,....
The commission drew up a profession of faith which they signed, and submitted to Pope John XII.
So is it John the 12th, the 21st or the 22nd, or can't the author make up his mind?
FReegards!
Are nuns catechists?
Stop sending money... no money the organization withers on the ‘vine’!
“Not capable of error.”
When discussing theology, you should use a theological dictionary.
“Tell this retired alter boy how this Pope meets any of the definitions of infallible.”
He meets all of them - if and when he exercises that part of the office he holds (which he hasn’t). You seem to have no idea what you’re talking about.
Some are. Some aren’t.
I’m a practicing Catholic...you may be surprised how many Catholics like me probably would agree with whatever you’d say about Pope Francis!
Serious error of a Pope bump
In the church I attend the pastor would be fired if he went off the ranch like Frances.
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.