Is not the pope the final arbiter of Catholic doctrine? Inerrant and all that? Sorry, but praying to satan is now official Catholic doctrine.
LOL! Some people have no idea what they are talking about. It would be better off if they were silent.
If you’re Baptist, and the head of the Southern Baptist Convention comes out and announces he’s gay, are you going to stop being baptist? Of course not.
If I try finding a church that doesn’t have any stupid sinners in it I’d be in trouble. And so would you so try coming down off that high horse.
No, in order for the Pope to declare something official doctrine, the following would have to happen:
1) it would have to be something that had been believed by the Church since the very beginning, but was never actually declared "official" before, and for some reason the Pope wants to highlight it now. If that was true about praying to satan, all Protestants would believe it, too (which obviously they don't), since they were there at the beginning, too.
2) the Pope would have a document that he had written, spelling out the doctrine for everyone to read. It wouldn't be based on an action of his.
3) the Pope would have to declare in that document that he was speaking infallibly. Popes have only done that a few times throughout history. For example, Benedict never did it. JPII did it only once in 27 years as Pope.
So, we can rest assured that this is NOT official Catholic doctrine, and that maybe Francis is off his meds (again) instead, a sucky thought nevertheless.
Only when infallibly speaking according to Rome's infallibly defined scope and subject-based criteria. And RCs are enjoined to provide implicit assent of faith to infallible teachings, religious assent of mind and will to even non-infallible teachings, which seem to be the majority.
But even then RCs cannot be sure how many infallible papal pronouncements in all there are, as well as those by the bishops in union with the pope (who does not need their sanction). And both what magisterial level a teaching fall under as well as the meanings of each can be subject to some degree of interpretation.
This all is based upon the unScriptural premise that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth (including writings and men being of God) and to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith, and authority. (Jn. 14:16,26; 15:26; 16:13; Mt. 16:18; Lk. 10:16)
And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that Rome is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus those who dissent from the latter are held as being in rebellion to God, even though under this model the NT would be invalidated, which did not begin under this premise of perpetual assured magisterial veracity, but upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power. To the glory of God.
All of which is probably more than you wanted to know.