Replies

I don't see what is confusing about saying that the infallibility inheres not in the man/men, who is a sinner/are sinners, but in the office (or function, in the case of a council).

I'd say that the conference in Jerusalem gives a precedent. Nobody thinks anyone there individually and "on his own time", so to speak, was infallible. But when they gather and deliberate they end up saying "It seems good to the Holy Spirit and to us ...." I think we have a precedent.

Not confusing? If it is not (deliberately) confusing why is there no such thing as a list of "infallible" pronouncements of Ecumenical Councils and/or Popes"

Why do present day Apologists find it necessary to "explain" why a clear cut declaration by the 6th Ecumenical Council of a pronouncement of anethema against Pope Honorius for the crime of "Heresy" doesn't really mean what is clearly written?

Why is the definition of "Infallibility" worded in such a way that Catholic Apologists will argue till the cows come home whether a particular Pope's encyclical met the "standard"?

Do either one or both of the two following Papal declarations meet the "infallibility" standards?

"Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."

and/or

"Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful."

Is there any "official" Church statement on either or both of the above? (Please bear in mind a statement by the Director of a particular Church office cannot be considered an "infallible" source.) Plausible deniability ya know.

Thank you for this excellent example of just how difficult it is to understand and believe what the RCC teaches when what it teaches and believes changes from moment to moment.

Men who presume to call themselves "pope" are either infallible or fallible regarding the faith of the RCC. There's no such thing as a "semi-infallibility," except perhaps when it suits a vacant argument.

Sometime people are confused not because the matter is confusing, but because of the urgency with which they approach a problem.

The conduct of a discussion can add to the confusion. Many jobs have to be done one piece at a time. Those interested in getting the job done are content with that. Others, and this would include those who do not want to get the job done, will interrupt work on one part of the problem by insisting that some other part of the problem be tended to. If they are humored, they can prevent any progress from being made.

By working one step at a time, often we find that what looked like a cumbersome and incomprehensible mess turns out to be a matter more of persistence and care than of any particular ingenuity. While Alexander's sword may have dealt successfully with the Gordian knot, other knots may require more patient methods.

There seems to be some problem with the notion that a flawed, even a deeply flawed, person can do one particular thing well. This despite the examples of Elvis Presley, Jimi Hendrix, and many, if not most, opera singers. The current piece of the problem that I happen to be working on is this simple notion.p>And if we can accept the notion that, as it were, by nature, a bad person can do a good thing, then it should be easier to accept that God might do a good thing through a bad person. Since, as a rule, bad people are all He has to work with if He weren't inclined to do good things through bad people, then very few good things would be done.

I am weary with the repeated objecting to the answer to one question on the grounds that it doesn't answer some other question. Whatever the intent, the result is obfuscation. So I will delay, and may put off forever, dealing with the questions you raise. Though I am no student of these things I recall both The one was the subject of a discussion on how to handle such declarations, and the other was initially described as something which "should be considered" infallible, which stuck me as a fascinating turn of phrase.