Rubio: Pope's Infallibility "Does Not Extend To Political Issues"

I’m not well versed on Catholicism. Do Catholics really believe that the Pope is infallible?

The Pope is guaranteed by the Holy Spirit to be infallible only in matters of faith and morals. Else, the words of Our Lord would be open to any and every diabolical (mis)interpretation. For those who reject Jesus appointment of Peter as the head of His (Jesus’) Church, well, there is no infallible teaching. And nothing is certain. Which is why there are so many evangelical and protestant branches of Christianity.

This is a focus group produced statement.

He is using the money that would have gone to walker from the Koch bros.

The Pope is not infallible. Only the Sacraments are.

“When, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals.” ~ First Vatican Council, First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, chapter 4, 9

"The doctrine of papal infallibility was introduced rather late in Church history. In the mid to late 1800s"

Not quite. It was Dogmatically defined at the First Vatican Council, but it was referred to as early as the 200's AD, and discussed by such great minds as St. Thomas Aquinas.

Call them BS and move on.—————————

The GOP is too stupid to do that.

I wonder if Francis will be doing Robocalls for Bernie Sanders in the next election.

I can only think of two infallible issues on which any Pope has spoken...the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception...his views on global warming, socialism, are pretty much the views of an educated man....no more, no less.

Well said, Marco. And the pope’s “infallibility” only extends to his followers anyway.

wrong....he speaks infallibly on matters of faith and morals and extends to ALL who call themselves Christians.

I’m not well versed on Catholicism. Do Catholics really believe that the Pope is infallible?

Yes, under extremely restrictive circumstances....only on matters of Faith and Morals and only when speaking Ex-Cathedra....from the chair of Peter.

It may be just me but he seems to be waaaay overstepping those parameters.

You got that right.

All I do hope and pray is that Pope Francis will appriciate the blessings of freedom to live and practice one’s faith in Jesus in peace.

You got that right. All I do hope and pray is that Pope Francis will appriciate the blessings of freedom to live and practice one’s faith in Jesus in peace.

He lives in the world...he is the head of an organization of 1.5 billion people who live under every form of government ever devised by man. He will be better able to witness the U.S. system as time goes by....he will learn that our welfare recipients are among the top 10% of wage earners in the world.

I see the Pope as the CEO of the oldest continuously operated business in the world. And, overall, I think that their business is good.

I’m not well versed on Catholicism. Do Catholics really believe that the Pope is infallible?

Only when he formally, in his presumed exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, defines a matter on faith and morals to be held by the whole church. How many times popes have done so from the beginning of Roman Catholicism (the turmoiled Vatican 1 claims to have decreed what always existed) is subject to interpretation, from 3 to multitudes, as can be the meaning of such.

In addition, infallibility is also presumed for the body of bishops in an Ecumenical Council when, together with Peter's successor they teach a doctrine to be believed as being divinely revealed (supreme Magisterium)

So Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.

http://catholicism.org/the-three-levels-of-magisterial-teaching.html states,

, there are three kinds of magisterial statement, three levels of authoritative teaching which establish the “the order of the truths to which the believer adheres.”[1] They are (1) truths taught as divinely revealed, (2) definitively proposed statements on matters closely connected with revealed truth, and (3) ordinary teaching on faith and morals. A fourth category, ordinary prudential teaching on disciplinary matters, is commonly accepted by theologians and can be inferred from the text of Cardinal Ratzinger’s Donum Veritatis.[2]

There is a difference in the kind of submission infallible, teachings, irreformable divinely revealed truths (which arguably constitute the smaller portion of what RCs believe and practice), require assent of faith" (which, according to various Catholic sources, is that of "sacred assent," "internal assent," being "without wavering," "submission of faith," "assent of mind and heart," “obedience of faith,” "theological faith," “divine and Catholic faith.”

One who doubts these articles lacks faith that Rome possesses ensured veracity, and falls into heresy), while "authentic" but non-definitive ordinary teaching requires "ordinary assent," that being "religious submission of will and intellect," submission of mind and will," which "forbids public contradiction of the teaching"." An obstinate refusal to give "assent of faith" when it is due is a sin against the virtue of faith, while obstinate refusal to give "religious assent" when it is due is a sin against the virtue of charity.

And the RC http://www.ewtn.com/library/DOCTRINE/TRIGINFL.HTM says,

According to Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis & Vatican II in Lumen Gentium n.25, even non-infallible teachings are to receive the submission of mind and will of the faithful. While not requiring the assent of faith, they cannot be disputed nor rejected publicly, and the benefit of the doubt must be given to the one possessing the fullness of teaching authority.

Which of 3 or 4 levels of magisterial teaching is also subject to interpretation, and thus what type of assent is required. To such a Prot responds,

Boy. No disrespect intended...and I mean that honestly...but my head spins trying to comprehend the various classifications of Catholic teaching and the respective degrees of certainty attached thereto. I suspect that the average Catholic doesn't trouble himself with such questions, but as to those who do (and us poor Protestants who are trying to get a grip on Catholic teaching) it sounds like an almost impossible task.

The solution for which is cultic, just obey and don't question:

Praxis [practice] is quite simple for faithful Catholics: give your religious assent of intellect and will to Catholic doctrine, whether it is infallible or not. That's what our Dogmatic Constitution on the Church demands, that's what the Code of Canon Laws demand, and that is what the Catechism itself demands. Heb 13:17 teaches us to "obey your leaders and submit to them." This submission is not contingent upon inerrancy or infallibility. - http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?p=1565864#post1565864 p> While RCs criticize Prots for seeking to ascertain the validity of teaching by examining the warrant from the source for it, they pick and choose what to obey in Catholic teaching based on their judgment of its conformity with what they see Rome teaching in the past. Many RCs here scoff at the idea of encyclicals, esp the latest one of the pope, as requiring religious assent, while others disagree, with both sides selectively quoting popes and teaching from the past.

Concerning which, some RCs reject all or parts of Vatican 2 (or at least religious assent disallowing public dissent), based on a difference btwn a "pastoral" vs. "dogmatic" council. To which a RC apologist states,

"This "pastoral" vs. "dogmatic" council distinction is a bunch of hooey (a technical canonical term meaning whatever). Those two words are descriptive, not definitive. Whatever Vatican II taught authoritatively, Catholics are bound to hold. Period. Of course, finding out just what Vatican II taught authoritatively is not always so clear as it was with, say, Trent, but that's a different problem from the one your friend wants to pose." ...So you are not at liberty to dissent from its teaching in part or in entirety. It's as simple as that. - Dave Armstrong, http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/01/vatican-ii-is-it-orthodox-binding.html <

Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent , since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth me";[3] and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians. - PIUS XII, HUMANI GENERI, August 1950; http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html

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 must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will.- POPE PAUL VI, LUMEN GENTIUM; http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html-

And it is obvious that Francis sees Climate Change as a dire threat, and that RC faith and morality requires the response he provides, and thus all RCs are to do likewise, and not publicly dissent.

It follows that the Church is essentially an unequal society, that is, a society comprising two categories of per sons, the Pastors and the flock...the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors . - VEHEMENTER NOS, an Encyclical of Pope Pius X promulgated on February 11, 1906.

Which type of submission has some weighty endorsement:

I say with Cardinal Bellarmine whether the Pope be infallible or not in any pronouncement, anyhow he is to be obeyed . No good can come from disobedience. His facts and his warnings may be all wrong; his deliberations may have been biassed. He may have been misled. Imperiousness and craft, tyranny and cruelty, may be patent in the conduct of his advisers and instruments. But when he speaks formally and authoritatively he speaks as our Lord would have him speak, and all those imperfections and sins of individuals are overruled for that result which our Lord intends (just as the action of the wicked and of enemies to the Church are overruled) and therefore the Pope's word stands, and a blessing goes with obedience to it, and no blessing with disobedience. - Life of Cardinal Newman, Vol. 2; Chapter 26. The Deadlock in Higher Education (1867); http://www.newmanreader.org/biography/ward/volume2/chapter26.html

when we love the Pope, there are no discussions regarding what he orders or demands, or up to what point obedience must go, and in what things he is to be obeyed ; when we love the Pope, we do not say that he has not spoken clearly enough, almost as if he were forced to repeat to the ear of each one the will clearly expressed so many times not only in person, but with letters and other public documents ; we do not place his orders in doubt, adding the facile pretext of those unwilling to obey – that it is not the Pope who commands, but those who surround him; we do not limit the field in which he might and must exercise his authority ; we do not set above the authority of the Pope that of other persons, however learned, who dissent from the Pope, who, even though learned, are not holy, because whoever is holy cannot dissent from the Pope.

The Bishops form the most sacred part of the Church, that which instructs and governs men by divine right; and so he who resists them and stubbornly refuses to obey their word places himself outside the Church [cf. Matt. 18:18]. But obedience must not limit itself to matters which touch the faith: its sphere is much more vast: it extends to all matters which the episcopal power embraces. - (Pope Saint Pius X, Allocution Vi ringrazio to priests on the 50th anniversary of the Apostolic Union, November 18, 1912, as found at http://www.christorchaos.com/?q=content/choosing-ignore-pope-leo-xiii-and-pope-saint-pius-x

to scrutinize the actions of a bishop, to criticize them, does not belong to individual Catholics, but concerns only those who, in the sacred hierarchy, have a superior power; above all, it concerns the Supreme Pontiff, for it is to him that Christ confided the care of feeding not only all the lambs, but even the sheep [cf. John 21:17]. - Est Sane Molestum (1888) Apostolic Letter of Pope Leo XIII; http://www.novusordowatch.org/est-sane-molestum-leo-xiii.htm

To the shepherds alone was given all power to teach, to judge, to direct; on the faithful was imposed the duty of following their teaching, of submitting with docility to their judgment, and of allowing themselves to be governed, corrected, and guided by them in the way of salvation. Thus, it is an absolute necessity for the simple faithful to submit in mind and heart to their own pastors, and for the latter to submit with them to the Head and Supreme Pastor....

Similarly, it is to give proof of a submission which is far from sincere to set up some kind of opposition between one Pontiff and another. Those who, faced with two differing directives, reject the present one to hold to the past, are not giving proof of obedience to the authority which has the right and duty to guide them; and in some ways they resemble those who, on receiving a condemnation, would wish to appeal to a future council, or to a Pope who is better informed.

On this point what must be remembered is that in the government of the Church, except for the essential duties imposed on all Pontiffs by their apostolic office, each of them can adopt the attitude which he judges best according to times and circumstances. Of this he alone is the judge. It is true that for this he has not only special lights, but still more the knowledge of the needs and conditions of the whole of Christendom, for which, it is fitting, his apostolic care must provide. - Epistola Tua (1885), Apostolic Letter of Pope Leo XIII; http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage_print.asp?number=403215&language=en

Of course, the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility is among many things which are not of Scripture, but are part of the deformation of NT church .

See post above

For those who reject Jesus appointment of Peter as the head of His (Jesus’) Church, well, there is no infallible teaching. And nothing is certain.

So if i understand you correctly, you are saying that ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility is essential for assurance of what is of God, men and writings. And should I presume that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that such is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus any who knowingly dissent from the latter must be in rebellion to God.

Does this represent what you hold to or in what way does it differ?

The GOP is too stupid to do that.

I knew there was a reason they are called the stupid party. 😃

I can only think of two infallible issues on which any Pope has spoken...the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception...

And who told you that pope was infallible on those proclamations??? THAT POPE TOLD YOU THAT...HaHaHaHaHa...What's even funnier is you guys believe him...

Saw your pope today on the tube riding in his little put-put mobile...Thousands upon thousands of people lined up to fawn over this guy...Most of them will believe anything he tells them about global warming or any thing else...It's amazing the power this man has over so many people...